header-logo header-logo

Court of Appeal off balance

19 August 2009 / Evelyn Reid
Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-detail

Planning permission cannot be assumed for the purposes of valuation under the Land Compensation Act 1961, the House of Lords has ruled.

In the compulsory purchase case of Spirerose Ltd (in administration) v Transport for London (formerly London Underground Ltd) [2009] UKHL 44 the planning authority had “resolved” to grant permission but no valid certificate had been issued and the valuation was conducted without one. 

The law lords over-ruled the Court of Appeal decision that the compensation should reflect the market value based on the site with planning permission. 

Lord Walker said that to transform a “probability” of planning permission into a certainty on the footing that the civil standard of proof – the balance of probabilities – had been satisfied distorted the nature of the valuation exercise required by the 1961 Act. 

“The Court of Appeal had found that if planning permission would, on the balance of probabilities, be available then compensation should be assessed as if the land actually had the benefit of that consent,” says Malcolm Dowden, solicitor LexisPSL.

"However,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll