Pro Investments Limited v London Borough Of Hounslow

In compulsory-acquisition compensation proceedings, an acquiring authority may make an offer addressing only a properly particularised part of the claim and rely on section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 for the costs attributable to that part. Where section 4 applies, the statutory costs consequence begins when the offer is made; there is no general period of grace for considering it. The Tribunal’s practice directions cannot modify that statutory rule. Withdrawal of the offer after the hearing has begun may constitute a special reason not to award costs incurred after withdrawal.

Pro Investments Limited brought a compensation reference concerning the compulsory acquisition of its land by the London Borough of Hounslow. The authority made a written offer of £11,575,000 on 10 March 2021, covering the rule 2 land value and basic loss payment but excluding several additional heads of claim. The offer was withdrawn after the final hearing began on 12 April 2021.

The claimant recovered less than the offered sum. The central issues were whether the offer engaged section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961, when the statutory costs consequences began, and whether withdrawal of the offer justified a different order.

1. The authority’s offer engaged section 4 even though it addressed only a properly particularised part of the claim. The excluded claims were insufficiently particularised, save that one could have been separately offered.
2. Section 4 prevailed over the general costs discretion under section 29 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 where the provisions conflicted. The claimant was required to pay the authority’s costs incurred after the offer was made, subject to any special reason. There was no statutory period of grace for considering the offer, and the Practice Directions could not alter the statutory rule.
3. Following Halpern v Greater London Authority [2014] UKUT 116 (LC), withdrawal of the offer after commencement of the hearing was a special reason not to award the authority its costs incurred thereafter. It did not entitle the claimant to recover its own post-withdrawal costs.
4. The authority was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs up to and including 10 March 2021 on the indemnity basis. The claimant was ordered to pay the authority’s costs from 11 March to 12 April 2021 on the standard basis. There was no order as to costs incurred on or after 13 April 2021.