Nofax Station Road Limited v The London Borough of Barnet
Decision date: 13 October 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 325 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerns a costs dispute after the Tribunal awarded the claimant £1,510,000 in a compulsory purchase reference. The claimant had made an unconditional offer of £975,000 and the acquiring authority had offered £325,000; the Tribunal found for the claimant overall but rejected the claimant’s planning case (planning expert Mr Dear), accepting valuation evidence. The principal issues are whether the claimant should recover costs of its planning expert, whether costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis, and whether payment of the award should be deferred. The Tribunal applied s.4(3) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (presuming costs run from the claimant’s offer unless special reasons exist) while noting its broader discretion under s.29/Rule 10 to make costs orders for earlier periods.
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 judgment establishes that where a claimant’s unconditional offer is met or exceeded by the Tribunal award s.4(3) of the 1961 Act creates a statutory presumption that the acquiring authority will pay the claimant’s costs incurred after the date of that offer, subject to departure only for special reasons; separately, the Tribunal retains a general discretion under s.29/Rule 10 (and Tribunal Rule 10) to award costs for periods before a claimant’s offer, governed by ordinary reasonableness and proportionality principles.
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 noted (obiter) that there may be cases in which an acquiring authority’s so‑called unconditional offer is not truly unconditional (citing Nelson) such that a short period for consideration might be allowed before costs run from the offer date, and reiterated that indemnity costs remain exceptional and require clear justification from conduct or other circumstances.