Charles James Braithwaite v London Borough of Enfield Council

For compulsory-purchase compensation, open-market value assumes a sale on conventional terms by a willing seller. A restriction imposed by the acquiring authority which requires renovation and occupation within a fixed period, and thereby depresses the price, is not a characteristic of the land and must be disregarded.

A basic loss payment is calculated from the market value of the interest, not the claimant’s equity after mortgage debt. Disturbance loss requires a causal connection with the acquisition, absence of remoteness, and reasonable mitigation. Only reasonably evidenced removal costs are recoverable.

The claimant’s freehold house was acquired by general vesting declaration for an empty-property strategy. The acquiring authority later sold it at auction subject to conditions requiring renovation, occupation within 12 months, and a title restriction.

On a written-representations reference, the claimant sought compensation based on a higher market value, a basic or home loss payment, fuel costs for removing possessions, and an increase in debt due to his sister. The central issues were the open-market value, the proper basis of the basic loss payment, and whether the claimed disturbance losses were causally connected, sufficiently proximate, and reasonably mitigated.

1. Compensation was determined at £644,646.37, with statutory interest from the vesting date.
2. Under rule (2) of section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, the auction was sound evidence of open-market value and the property’s disrepair and required repair works were reflected in the bidding. However, the obligation to complete works, secure occupation within 12 months, and accept a title restriction was an unusual purchaser-facing constraint imposed to further the acquiring authority’s policy. It was not an inherent characteristic of the property. Its depressing effect had to be disregarded. The Tribunal therefore assessed market value at £600,000 rather than the £594,000 auction price: paras 12–19.
3. The claimant had not occupied the house as his only or main residence during the statutory year. He was therefore not entitled to a home loss payment. Under section 33A of the Land Compensation Act 1973, the basic loss payment was 7.5% of the property’s market value, not of his equity after deduction of the mortgage. It was £45,000: paras 20–24.
4. Applying Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd [1995] 2 AC 111, disturbance compensation requires causation, absence of remoteness, and reasonable mitigation. The claimant established a reasonable, though incompletely evidenced, fuel claim for four pre-vesting journeys, assessed at £185.04. The additional debt owed to his sister failed all three requirements: it lacked a sufficient causal connection with the acquisition, was too remote, and was not mitigated because the claimant delayed making his compensation claim: paras 25–38.
5. The acquiring authority was ordered to pay the Tribunal determination fee and reimburse the claimant’s application fee: paras 42–44.

Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): determination of a compensation reference following compulsory acquisition by general vesting declaration. The compulsory purchase order had been confirmed by the Secretary of State, but no appellate history is stated.