Nawaz v Slough Borough Council

In a compulsory purchase valuation appeal, a tribunal does not make an error of law merely by adopting a sensible, approximate valuation method, particularly where the opposing party provides no contrary expert evidence. Unverified evidence of comparable sales or offers may properly be given little or no weight. Whether to accept rough-and-ready expert evidence, and what weight to give it, are principally matters for the Lands Tribunal. A claim for disturbance or loss of rent cannot be pursued on appeal where the tribunal’s decision shows that it was not pursued or properly raised below. Permission to appeal requires a real prospect of success; disagreement with valuation findings, without an identifiable error of law, is insufficient.

Mr Nawaz sought permission to appeal from a decision of the Lands Tribunal in a compulsory purchase case concerning 49 Lake Avenue, Slough. The Tribunal valued the property at £70,000, having accepted evidence that a house in good condition would have been worth £85,000 and allowing for necessary works.

The applicant challenged the treatment of an unverified comparable sale, an alleged offer for the subject property, the acquiring authority’s expert evidence, and the omission of a claim for disturbance or loss of rent. The central question was whether any of those matters disclosed an error of law giving the proposed appeal a real prospect of success.

1. Permission refused. The Court of Appeal, per Lord Justice Schiemann, held that none of the four criticisms disclosed an error of law or gave the proposed appeal a real prospect of success.
2. The Tribunal was entitled to place no substantial weight on the alleged sale of 19 Lake Avenue because there was no written evidence that a sale had occurred. A document marked subject to contract and lacking a signature did not establish a completed sale.
3. The alleged offer for the subject property did not undermine the valuation. The evidence did not establish the terms of the offer, and the Tribunal was entitled to take account of the applicant’s failure, despite an adjournment and directions, to produce expert evidence challenging the acquiring authority’s valuation.
4. The acquiring authority’s expert had used sensible valuation principles. His deductions for repairs involved a rough-and-ready assessment, but the Tribunal was entitled to accept that evidence in the absence of contrary expert evidence. Whether such evidence should be accepted, including in light of the absence of a structural survey, was principally a matter for the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s choice between requiring detailed expert valuations and accepting a practical approximate exercise was not legally erroneous.
5. The Lands Tribunal had identified the open market value of the freehold interest as the issue for determination. Its failure to deal with a disturbance or loss-of-rent claim suggested that the point had not been pursued below. The Court was not persuaded that the Tribunal had erred in law by refusing to permit the claim to proceed.
6. The application was refused. There was no order for costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On an application for permission to appeal, the court refused permission in [2002] EWCA Civ 984.
• Lands Tribunal: Awarded £70,000 for the compulsory purchase valuation of the property.