Nigel Elston Bishop & Anor v Transport for London

Decision date: 18 October 2017

Neutral citation: [2017] UKUT 405 (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 claims by Nigel and Max Bishop (and their company MRS) for c. £4.18m principally for lost future remuneration following compulsory acquisition of Bishop's Yard by Transport for London under the Crossrail Act. The Tribunal found the business was already unprofitable and unsustainable before notice of entry, that the claimed future income depended on speculative turnaround assumptions lacking credible evidence, and dismissed the main claim; only site clearance costs of £46,815 were awarded. Costs were largely ordered against the claimants.

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

A claimant cannot recover lost personal remuneration as compensation for compulsory acquisition where (on the balance of probabilities) the enterprise was insolvent or unsustainable prior to acquisition so the loss was not caused by the acquisition; claims based on speculative turnaround measures unsupported by credible operational evidence will fail.

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 observed (non‑bindingly) that valuing the lease on the open market would have been a more conventional basis for compensation though parties may pursue alternative formulations under rule 6; it also noted that recurrent use of phoenix companies and continued drawings to the detriment of creditors are relevant to the credibility of claims for future remuneration.