Estate of Dame Bernice Lake QC (Deceased) and another (Respondents) v Attorney General of Anguilla (Appellant) (Anguilla)

Compensation for compulsory acquisition is assessed in separate components. Under the Land Acquisition Act, acquired land is ordinarily valued under the open-market rule as a distinct parcel, with the owner’s reluctance to sell disregarded. Loss to retained land is addressed separately as severance or injurious affection. A before-and-after valuation may combine those components, but it is not mandatory. The party seeking that method must support it with evidence. A tribunal may reject a proposed highest and best use where financial feasibility is unproved. Appellate intervention on rational factual findings, especially concurrent findings, is exceptional. Planning policy is evidence of factual impact, not law itself.

The Government of Anguilla compulsorily acquired land to extend the airport runway. Ten acres were retained, 16 acres were later returned, and the retained land was said to have suffered injurious affection. A Board of Assessment awarded US$1.26m. The Court of Appeal rejected the Board’s stand-alone valuation, adopted an averaged before-and-after approach and substituted an award of about US$19.5m, while upholding the Board’s factual assessment of injurious affection. A related claim by Conch Bay Development Ltd concerning neighbouring land failed and was not appealed. The Attorney General challenged the substituted award; the Lake appellant challenged the concurrent findings on planning restrictions. The central issues were the lawful valuation method and the scope of appellate intervention on fact.

1. Disposition. The Board advised that the Attorney General’s appeal be allowed in full and the Lake appellant’s appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s substituted award could not stand. There was no basis for remittal to the Board of Assessment.
2. Valuation of acquired land. The constitutional requirement of adequate compensation meant that the Land Acquisition Act had to be read with the Constitution of Anguilla. Section 18(2) required the acquired land to be valued hypothetically as a distinct parcel offered on the open market by a willing seller. Section 18(8)(b) required the owner’s disinclination to part with the land to be disregarded at that stage. Compensation for severance and injurious affection to retained land remained separately available.
3. Before-and-after method. The Board was not legally obliged to use the method discussed in Hamilton v Minister of Lands [2012] NZLVT 2. That method could be appropriate where supported by evidence, but the party seeking it bore the onus of establishing its suitability. Pattle v Secretary of State for Transport [2009] UKUT 141 (LC) likewise did not establish any mandatory requirement. The Lake appellant had presented no before-and-after valuation of Parcel 100.
4. Assessment of highest and best use. The Board was entitled to reject the asserted high-end tourism use. The evidence did not establish a realistic prospect that the proposed development was financially feasible. It was entitled to accept the rational evidence supporting residential use and stand-alone valuation. The Court of Appeal wrongly treated the Board as having ignored the relationship between the acquired land and Parcel 100 and wrongly substituted an averaged valuation.
5. Injurious affection and factual findings. The Board and the Court of Appeal made concurrent findings that the runway extension caused specified, rather than total, restrictions on the retained 42-acre plot. Planning policy was not law; the relevant question was its likely factual impact as a matter of policy and practice. The evidence was capable of supporting the Board’s conclusion. Applying the principle stated in Byers v Chen Ningning [2021] UKPC 4 and Dass v Marchand [2021] UKPC 2, there was no exceptional basis for intervention.

• Privy Council — In [2022] UKPC 33, the Attorney General’s appeal was allowed in full and the Lake appellant’s appeal was dismissed.
• Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Anguilla) — The appeal was allowed in part. The court substituted compensation of approximately US$19.5m, while upholding the Board’s findings on the extent of injurious affection.
• Board of Assessment — The Board awarded compensation and interest totalling US$1.26m.