Walter Morrissey v Wigan Council
Decision date: 16 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 192 (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 determined the open market value of 487 Liverpool Road (a poor-condition late Victorian end-terrace) for compulsory acquisition compensation. The tribunal preferred the council’s evidence over the claimant’s unsupported valuation and limited weight to a repair schedule prepared without inspection, and assessed market value at £35,750. The tribunal made no order for costs.
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
The decision indicates that market value under the relevant rule should reflect what an average purchaser would pay, using comparable evidence adjusted for the property’s condition and reasonable repair costs; repair cost allowances should be based on realistic contractor/retail rates and attract limited weight if prepared without inspection or on an inappropriate price base. The tribunal also treated a claimant’s personal ability to carry out repairs below market cost as not a basis for reducing assessed repair costs for valuation purposes.
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 judgment commented (obiter) that applying a fixed percentage deduction (for example, 10%) for a statutory periodic tenancy may be inappropriate in a rising market and that tenancy adjustments should reflect market conditions rather than fixed rules.
Warning
Chunk contains repetition and an apparent inconsistency in the stated valuation date (references to June 2004 and 24 June 2005). Notes contain some repetition and an apparent inconsistency about the valuation date (references to June 2004 and to 24 June 2005), so the record may be incomplete on timing.