Castlefield Property Limited v National Highways Ltd
Decision date: 19 September 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 217 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned compensation for compulsory acquisition of the only access to the Cheshire Lounge under the A556 Development Consent Order, focusing on valuation at the date of acquisition and heads of Rule 6 disturbance. The Tribunal held valuation must reflect only matters known or reasonably anticipated at the valuation date (10 Nov 2014), rejected hindsight, made a 30% combined allowance for reduced access/prominence and uncertainty over easements, and awarded injurious affection £360,000 and Rule 6 disturbance £560,626 (aggregate £947,501 before interest and adjustments).
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The binding ratio identifiable from the notes is that valuation for injurious affection is to be made as at the date of entry and must take account only of matters known or reasonably anticipated at that date, not subsequent hindsight; where uncertainty about third‑party rights exists at that date a market discount reflecting the commercial impact of that uncertainty is appropriate (applied here as 10% for physical disadvantage and 20% for contractual uncertainty), consistent with the compensatory principle of placing the owner in the position they would have occupied but for the acquisition.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal made obiter observations criticizing expert evidence that closely mirrored instructing parties' positions, noting limits of comparative evidence and unexplained methodologies (e.g. unidentified comparables, failure to use residual methods), and expressed skepticism about treating highly speculative purchaser behaviour as representative where statutory entitlements could make favourable outcomes likely.