Welford v Transport for London

In a compensation reference arising from compulsory purchase, appellate intervention is justified only where the tribunal’s findings rest on an error of law, procedural unfairness, or an irrational conclusion unsupported by the evidence. Loss must be causally connected with the acquisition or scheme, not too remote, and reasonably mitigated. A party who has agreed and consistently treated an arrangement as creating leasehold liability cannot later adopt an inconsistent position. The court also stressed proportionality in written submissions: excessive material can obscure the real issues and burden the tribunal. The appeal was dismissed because the tribunal had made findings open to it on the evidence, applied the correct principles, and afforded a fair procedure.

Terence Welford claimed approximately £136,000 from Transport for London following the compulsory acquisition of part of land at Worldwide House and part of Lanrick Road. The claim included rent concessions, a post-possession letting void, injurious affection to Worldwide House and an adjacent building, personal time, and costs.

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), Mr P R Francis, awarded £8,641.50, comprising personal time, pre-reference costs and the value of land taken: [2010] UKUT 99 (LC). Mr Welford appealed, alleging procedural unfairness, errors concerning the lease and deed of surrender, inadequate reasons, irrationality, and misapplication of the compensation provisions. The central issue was whether the tribunal’s factual conclusions and legal directions disclosed any appealable error.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Upper Tribunal’s determination rested principally on findings of fact supported by ample evidence. It had directed itself by reference to applicable and essentially uncontroversial principles, gave clear reasons, and adopted a fair procedure.
2. Pre-possession rent loss required a causal connection with the acquisition, absence of excessive remoteness, and reasonable steps to eliminate or reduce the loss, applying the principles identified in Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd [1995] 2 AC 111. The tribunal was entitled to find that the loss resulted from the anticipated roadworks rather than the prospective acquisition, and that an arbitrary rent reduction before the premises were affected was not reasonable.
3. As to the post-possession void, the parties had consistently proceeded on the basis that TfL had taken over WCG’s leasehold interest and liabilities. The deed of surrender expressly recognised TfL’s liability as lessee. The label estoppel was unnecessary or possibly inappropriate; the proper analysis was that the parties had made an agreement governing rent liability and one party could not unilaterally depart from it. This was distinct from Re: Distributors and Warehousing Limited [1986] BCLC 129.
4. Any remaining claim for the letting void failed because the claimant had not taken reasonable steps to market the premises and mitigate loss. The same causation and mitigation principles defeated the City Eggs rent claim. The tribunal was also entitled to reject the alleged reduction in investment value of Worldwide House for want of objective supporting evidence.
5. The criticisms of excessive written submissions were justified. Authorities should be selected for their relevance, and submissions should remain proportionate to the issues.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the Upper Tribunal’s determination of compensation at £8,641.50.
• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) — Mr P R Francis determined the compensation payable at £8,641.50: [2010] UKUT 99 (LC).