Image from Google Jackets

Ryde International plc v London Regional Transport

Series: Rating and Valuation Reporter ; [2004] RVR 60-65(7)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2004] EWCA Civ 232, 5 March 2004. Appeal by claimant R against LT decision (ACQ/147/2000, Abs67059) with regards to compensation payable to R for freehold interest in block of flats compulsorily acquired by L in connection with the Croydon Tramlink Scheme. Appeal was concerned with the assessment of compensation payable at valuation date. LT had assessed the compensation due to R under Land Compensation Act 1961 s5-rule-2 for the value of the land in the open market at the valuation date and concluded that R was not entitled to be separately compensated for loss of profit under the 1961 Act s5-rule-6. R argued that if the land had not been acquired by T it would have marketed and sold the flats to individual purchasers at a profit and that assessing the value on the basis of a single sale was tantamount to paying less for the land than it was really worth. "Held": LT decision upheld on the grounds that R was not entitled to separate compensation under s5-rule-6 as compensation for the value of the land on the valuation date had reflected its potentiality for profit making. (See also Abs63843). View judgment at www.bailii.org.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS67611 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 125564-1001

[2004] EWCA Civ 232, 5 March 2004. Appeal by claimant R against LT decision (ACQ/147/2000, Abs67059) with regards to compensation payable to R for freehold interest in block of flats compulsorily acquired by L in connection with the Croydon Tramlink Scheme. Appeal was concerned with the assessment of compensation payable at valuation date. LT had assessed the compensation due to R under Land Compensation Act 1961 s5-rule-2 for the value of the land in the open market at the valuation date and concluded that R was not entitled to be separately compensated for loss of profit under the 1961 Act s5-rule-6. R argued that if the land had not been acquired by T it would have marketed and sold the flats to individual purchasers at a profit and that assessing the value on the basis of a single sale was tantamount to paying less for the land than it was really worth. "Held": LT decision upheld on the grounds that R was not entitled to separate compensation under s5-rule-6 as compensation for the value of the land on the valuation date had reflected its potentiality for profit making. (See also Abs63843). View judgment at www.bailii.org.