[2007] EWLands ACQ_47_2005, 14 February 2007. The claimant Crowley (C) ran a business from a premises in Liverpool which supplied, administered and maintained outlets in Liverpool, Birkenhead and Market Deeping. The central office premises were subject to a Compulsory Purchase Order by Liverpool PSDA (L). C claimed to have made reasonable efforts to acquire a suitable replacement property, but none were available of suitable design and location to continue maintaining all three outlets. As a result the branches in Liverpool and Birkenhead were closed, and C claimed compensation from L. Claims were made for disturbance and relocation costs; loss of business value; and post possession losses. L claimed that the clients were merely going through the motions and not committed to moving. "Held": L bore the burden of showing that, on balance of probabilities, C had failed to take sufficient steps to mitigate their losses. On-site storage facilities represented a significant economy over external warehouse storage. It was considered that none of the offered properties offered sufficient space and advantageous location, due in part to the same city centre redevelopment which had necessitated the Compulsory Purchase Order. C's claim for losses was reasonable, subject to appropriate multiplier calculations. Judgment accordingly.