Gerald Dunbar v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

Decision date: 20 April 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 169 (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 Mr Dunbar's claim for disturbance compensation from Blackburn with Darwen BC following the sale of 23 Alaska Street, specifically whether a bridging loan (£10,620) used to buy 34 Lytham Road could be recovered. The Tribunal held the bridging loan was not recoverable: the replacement purchase occurred more than one year before entry so could not be claimed under s.10A LCA 1961, and the claimant was not in occupation so rule (6) did not apply. The bridging-loan claim was disallowed; modest remaining disputes (carpets and surveyor's fees) were left for settlement.

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

Costs incurred in connection with a replacement purchase made more than one year before possession cannot be recovered under s.10A of the Land Compensation Act 1961; and where the claimant is not in occupation of land, expenses of purchasing other property that reflect a personal investment choice are not compensable under disturbance rule (6).

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 indicated that claimants holding property as investments who receive market value are not entitled to compensation for costs of subsequent investment purchases arising from their own choice, and emphasised the expectation that parties should mitigate loss and exercise restraint before committing to replacement purchases pending certainty of acquisition.