David Miller & Anor v National Grid Electricity Distribution (East Midlands) Plc

Compensation for a statutory necessary wayleave is assessed under the general principles of compulsory acquisition, subject to the statutory scheme. The landowner is compensated for loss fairly attributable to the grant, not for value created by the electricity operator’s need for the land or by the cost of an alternative route. Compensation may include diminution in the land’s value and proved disturbance loss. For disturbance, the loss must be caused by the grant, not too remote, and reasonably mitigated.

The Secretary of State granted National Grid Electricity Distribution (East Midlands) plc a 15-year necessary wayleave over land owned by David Miller and Rachael Frossell. It authorised the retention of overhead electricity lines and poles crossing the property. The owners referred their compensation claim to the Upper Tribunal under paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989.

The valuation experts agreed that the grant diminished the property’s value by £43,800. The owners sought £200,000, arguing that compensation should also reflect the operator’s saving from avoiding a more costly alternative route. They also claimed disturbance compensation. The principal question was whether the owners could share in that saving.

1. The Tribunal determined compensation at £48,800, comprising £43,800 for diminution in value and £5,000 for disturbance, with statutory interest from 18 July 2024.

2. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989 is assessed by the general principles of compulsory acquisition. The bespoke wayleave provisions do not import those rules wholesale, but the principle of equivalence applies: the owner receives fair compensation for loss attributable to the grant, neither less nor more. The Tribunal relied on Welford v EDF Energy Networks (LPN) Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 293 and the explanation of the bespoke scheme in National Grid Electricity Transmission plc v Arnold White Estates Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 216. It applied the equivalence principle stated in Horn v Sunderland Corporation [1941] 2 KB 26 and Director of Buildings and Lands v Shun Fung Ironworks Ltd [1995] 2 AC 111.

3. The owners could not recover a commercial premium measured by the operator’s saving on an alternative route. That saving arose from the operator’s need to supply its customers and measured value to the operator, not value to the owners. The scheme giving rise to that value had to be disregarded under the no-scheme principle, associated with Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co. Ltd v Sub-Intendant of Crown Lands [1947] AC 565.

4. Wyness v Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution Plc [2020] 4 WLUK 364 did not establish an entitlement to such compensation. It concerned a preliminary decision that a claim could proceed, not a final determination of entitlement. It was also factually different: the claimant there had an opportunity to negotiate with a neighbour, whereas these owners had no comparable bargaining position and an alternative route was available.

5. The Tribunal retained the agreed diminution figure. It noted that yield choices can materially affect a finite-term calculation and should be considered carefully in each case. The 5% yield used in Nelson v Southern Electric Power Distribution [2025] UKUT 213 had been agreed by the experts and was not considered Tribunal guidance. The evidence here did not permit the Tribunal to calculate a different figure fairly.

6. Disturbance loss requires a causal connection to the grant, sufficient proximity, and reasonable mitigation. The £5,000 fence claim met those requirements. Unpaid annual payments and time spent contesting the wayleave before its grant were not compensable under that head; post-grant time spent establishing the compensation claim was causally connected but unquantified. The owners’ complaints about the operator’s conduct did not create a separate entitlement to compensation.

not stated in the judgment.