Solartrack Plc v London Development Agency
Decision date: 30 November 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKUT 242 (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
Solartrack claimed compensation after the London Development Agency (LDA) acquired 42–44 New Road, seeking sums for a 1983 Seco-Larm underlease, the freehold market value, and disturbance. The Tribunal found the letters purporting to assign the underlease to Solartrack were fabricated and dismissed the underlease claim; it also held it had no statutory jurisdiction to award market value for the freehold sold before the compulsory acquisition. The Tribunal held Solartrack may pursue a contractual disturbance claim (including loss of related companies) and treated the freehold reference as a consent reference under the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 s1(5) for arbitration of that contractual dispute. Costs were allocated largely against Solartrack for the leasehold reference and largely for the LDA on the freehold reference, with mixed outcomes on the disturbance preliminary issue.
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 clear ratio is that a claimant cannot recover statutory compulsory-purchase compensation for an interest it no longer owned at the date of acquisition (no jurisdiction where the interest was sold pre-CPO), and where parties have contractually agreed that disturbance disputes be determined "as if" under statutory provisions and referred to the Tribunal, the Tribunal may act as arbitrator under the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 s1(5) to determine those contractual disturbance claims.
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 falsification of documents by a party’s witness can justify dismissal of the related claim and may support an award of indemnity costs; and that, in appropriate circumstances, losses of associated or related companies can be included within a principal company's disturbance claim. These points were discussed as non-essential observations.