Patel & Anor v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

An appeal from the Lands Tribunal lies only on a question of law. Complaints challenging factual findings, the evaluation of comparators, or the weight given to evidence do not ordinarily establish an appealable error. Fresh evidence is admissible only in accordance with the principles in Ladd v Marshall, and evidence that could have been produced below will generally be excluded. Even where evidence is assumed admissible, permission should be refused if it could not materially affect the decision. A tribunal may depart from the usual costs order where a claimant has pursued an unrealistic claim and rejected or failed to accept a reasonable sealed offer. Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 adds nothing where the hearing was fair.

The Patel brothers sought permission to appeal from the Lands Tribunal’s valuation of their compulsorily purchased house at £5,700 and from its subsequent costs order. The Tribunal had relied on settlement evidence, open-market comparators, expert valuation evidence, and photographs showing the property’s condition. The applicants challenged factual findings, sought to introduce evidence concerning two alleged settlement values, objected to reliance on properties which their expert had not inspected, invoked Article 6, and alleged irrationality.

The Tribunal had also ordered the applicants to pay the Council’s costs after seven days from a sealed offer of £6,000. The central issue was whether any proposed appeal raised a question of law with a real prospect of success.

1. Application dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction over an appeal from the Lands Tribunal was confined to questions of law. The applicants’ challenges to the description and condition of the property, the treatment of newspaper advertisements, and the assessment of comparable properties were factual matters which the Tribunal was entitled to determine.
2. The proposed fresh evidence concerning properties said not to have been settled could plainly have been advanced before the Tribunal. Applying the principles in Ladd v Marshall as applicable under the CPR, there was no proper basis for admitting it. In any event, the evidence concerned only two of 24 Ford Street settlements and would not materially affect the Tribunal’s overall reasoning.
3. The failure to disclose the numbers of five Princes Street properties until the hearing affected the weight of that evidence, rather than its admissibility. Their descriptions and dimensions were before the Tribunal, which was entitled to take them into account.
4. There was no real prospect of success on the Article 6 argument. The applicants had received a fair hearing. The allegations of irrationality and that the Tribunal’s conclusion was not open to it on the evidence were untenable.
5. The costs order disclosed no appealable error. The Tribunal was entitled to regard the sealed offer of £6,000 and the pursuit of an unrealistic claim of up to £20,000 as special factors justifying departure from the usual costs position, consistently with the principle referred to in Purfleet.
6. There was no other compelling reason to permit an appeal. The application, including the challenge to the costs order, was dismissed.

• Lands Tribunal: Valued the compulsorily purchased property at £5,700 on 2 May 2001 and later ordered costs on 26 June 2001.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused and the application was dismissed.