Maria Da Silva v London Borough of Brent
Decision date: 31 March 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 120 (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 disputed heads of compensation following compulsory acquisition of Ms Da Silva's leasehold flat, principally a large surveyor's invoice, a solicitor's bill, the claimant's personal time/travel/mobile claims, and various Rule 6 disturbance items. The Tribunal held the third surveyor invoice (£28,600 + VAT) disproportionate and made a summary assessment allowing £14,300 + VAT; disallowed the CLC solicitor's invoice as relating to a challenge to the CPO; rejected personal time/travel/mobile claims for lack of evidence; allowed certain disturbance items in reduced sums. The Tribunal determined outstanding compensation at £26,930.50, made no costs order, and noted statutory interest.
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: medium
From the judgment the enforceable ratio that can safely be identified is that surveyor fees claimed in a compulsory acquisition reference must be reasonable and proportionate to the compensation at stake and to the complexity of the claim, and the Tribunal may make a summary assessment reducing disproportionate professional bills. Also, legal costs incurred in challenging the making of the compulsory purchase order are not compensatable in this reference.
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: low
The notes record non-binding observations that under the simplified procedure the Tribunal may rely on its experience to assess routine heads of claim despite limited evidence, that a previously-agreed cap on fees may become irrelevant if the acquiring authority accepts and pays earlier invoices and later undertakes to meet reasonable costs, and that travelling time and increased hourly rates require clear prior agreement to be recoverable.