David Miller & Anor v National Grid Electricity Distribution (East Midlands) Plc

Decision date: 16 July 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 265 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 the proper measure of compensation for a statutory "necessary wayleave" under paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989: whether claimants could recover a share of the grantee's avoided costs (a commercial/"ransom" valuation) rather than loss to the owner. The Tribunal rejected the claimants' commercial valuation and held compensation is the diminution in value of the land (agreed £43,800) plus provable disturbance (£5,000 awarded for fencing), totalling £48,800 with statutory interest from 18 July 2024. Other disturbance claims were not awarded for lack of quantification or causal connection.

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 is that compensation for a necessary wayleave is assessed by reference to the landowner's loss — the diminution in value plus provable disturbance — and does not include a share of the grantee's savings or a hypothetical commercial/market value that derives from the acquiring authority's special need or scheme.

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 expressed caution on valuation mechanics for limited-term wayleaves (issues such as decapitalisation/recapitalisation and choice of yield) and warned that agreed expert yields in other cases should not be treated as Tribunal guidance. It also observed that parties should consider inviting Secretary of State terms where unpaid interim occupation periods are in issue.