Pro Investments Limited v London Borough Of Hounslow
Decision date: 1 March 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 54 (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 costs after a compulsory purchase reference where the acquiring authority made a written offer on 10 March 2021 described "without prejudice save as to costs" but excluding certain heads, then withdrew it at the start of the hearing on 12 April 2021. The tribunal held s.4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 applied to the offer insofar as it covered the heads of claim for which the claimant had provided sufficient particulars, ordered costs accordingly (claimant to receive costs up to 10 March; claimant to pay acquiring authority for 11–12 March–April period), and treated the withdrawal at hearing as a "special reason" so that parties bore their own costs from 13 April onwards.
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
Where an acquiring authority makes a written offer limited to particular heads of claim for which the claimant has given sufficient particulars, that offer can qualify as an "unconditional offer in writing of any sum as compensation" under s.4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 for those heads; once s.4 applies, the tribunal must, absent special reasons, order that the claimant pay the acquiring authority's costs incurred after the offer (here treated as costs on or after the day after receipt).
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 practice directions cannot be used to override the statutory effect of s.4 (for example by creating a discretionary "grace" period), and observed that withdrawing an offer at the opening of a hearing can amount to a "special reason" to limit the acquiring authority's costs protection after withdrawal, but that this is a blunt tool to be used cautiously.