Warren James (Jewellers) Limited v Watford Borough Council

Warren James (Jewellers) Limited v Watford Borough Council

The Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to compensation for both temporary and permanent loss of profit. There were no suitable alternative premises available at the time of relocation, and the increased overheads in the relocation property were not offset by corresponding benefits. The presumption of value for money was rebutted. Compensation was assessed based on the difference in occupational costs between the reference and relocation properties, with adjustments for Covid-19 relief and rent savings after exercising a break clause.

Parties
Claimant: Warren James (Jewellers) Limited; Respondent: Watford Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Compulsory Purchase Compensation Reference / Final Determination by Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber)
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; compensation awarded for disturbance, temporary and permanent loss of profit.
Legal Topics
Disturbance Compensation, Permanent Loss of Profit, Temporary Loss of Profit, Value for Money in Relocation, Assessment of Compensation, Business Relocation
Compulsory Acquisition Land Law Compensation Law Disturbance Compensation Permanent Loss of Profit Temporary Loss of Profit Value for Money in Relocation Assessment of Compensation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warren James (Jewellers) Limited

Claimant

Watford Borough Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Compulsory Purchase Compensation Reference / Final Determination by Upper Tribunal (lands Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation for temporary and permanent loss of profit following compulsory acquisition and relocation
  2. 2 Whether increased overheads in the relocation property are compensatable as permanent loss
  3. 3 Whether the claimant obtained value for money in the relocation property or had suitable alternatives

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to compensation for both temporary and permanent loss of profit. There were no suitable alternative premises available at the time of relocation, and the increased overheads in the relocation property were not offset by corresponding benefits. The presumption of value for money was rebutted. Compensation was assessed based on the difference in occupational costs between the reference and relocation properties, with adjustments for Covid-19 relief and rent savings after exercising a break clause.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; compensation awarded for disturbance, temporary and permanent loss of profit.

Orders

  • Compensation determined at £647,510.95, comprising agreed relocation and fit out costs, temporary loss of profit (£184,045), permanent loss of profit (£318,469), statutory occupier’s loss payment (£1,760), and pre-reference professional fees (£11,618.10).
  • Statutory interest and post-reference costs may be payable in addition.