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.

[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.