Meghnagi v London Borough of Hackney

A specialist valuation tribunal’s assessment will not ordinarily justify appellate intervention merely because a party disagrees with the figure reached. Valuation is necessarily imprecise, and permission to appeal requires substantive grounds with realistic prospects of success.

A tribunal may reject an asserted purchase offer where the offeror will not give evidence and the circumstances surrounding the offer reduce its reliability. It may also accept a reasonable compulsory purchaser’s decision to use competitive tenders rather than an auction where the purchaser wishes to control the identity and conduct of the buyer. Compensation need not be assessed on an assumed auction basis where that approach is unsupported by the evidence.

The appellant challenged a Lands Tribunal determination concerning compensation for the compulsory purchase of his freehold interest in a house. The valuation date was 13 November 2000. He claimed £320,000; the acquiring authority valued the property at £120,000; and the Tribunal awarded £147,500.

The appellant argued that the authority had marketed the property ineffectively. His complaints concerned, among other matters, the requirement for an £80,000 bond, the use of competitive tenders rather than an auction, interviews for tenderers, and the Tribunal’s treatment of an alleged £195,000 offer. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed an arguable error in the Tribunal’s valuation warranting permission to appeal.

Application for permission to appeal refused.

1. The Tribunal was entitled to reject the appellant’s proposed valuation. The expert evidence provided little assistance, while the highest tender was a relevant starting point. The Tribunal was entitled to adjust that figure to reflect its assessment that the tenderers had overestimated the cost of the necessary building works.
2. The Tribunal was justified in accepting the authority’s strategy of avoiding an auction in order to control the identity of the purchaser and secure the rapid restoration of the property to residential occupation. The court rejected the argument that compensation should have been assessed on the basis of an auction. The auction evidence did not show that an auction would necessarily have produced a materially higher price.
3. The Tribunal was entitled, in the exercise of its discretion, to attach no weight to the alleged offer of £195,000. The offeror was unwilling to give evidence explaining it, and the timing of the offer was relevant. The Tribunal’s failure to explain separately why it had not issued a subpoena did not undermine its conclusion.
4. Viewed overall, the appellant’s complaints amounted to disagreement with the Tribunal’s valuation rather than substantive criticism of its decision. Valuation was necessarily imprecise, and the proposed grounds had no real prospects of success on an appeal. Permission was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused permission to appeal from the Lands Tribunal; order: “Application refused.”
• Lands Tribunal: awarded £147,500 compensation for the compulsory purchase of the property.