Crook and Renouf v Greffier of the States [2004] JRC 212 (06 December 2004)

Crook and Renouf v Greffier of the States [2004] JRC 212 (06 December 2004)

The claimants have an arguable case that the arbitrators may have misdirected themselves in law regarding the exclusion of premium value and the interpretation of special suitability under Article 9(c); therefore, the arbitrators are directed to state a case for the Court's decision.

Citation
[2004] JRC 212
Parties
Claimant: Margaret Kathleen Crook; Claimant: Joy Elizabeth Renouf; Respondent: Planning and Environment Committee
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
06 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Representation Following Arbitration Award (compulsory Purchase Compensation) / Post Arbitration, Application for Case Stated and Stay for Mediation
Outcome
Stay of proceedings granted; arbitrators directed to state a case; costs awarded to claimants.
Legal Topics
Compensation Valuation, Open Market Value, Special Suitability, Case Stated Procedure, Mediation Stay
Compulsory Purchase Land Law Arbitration Compensation Valuation Open Market Value Special Suitability Case Stated Procedure Mediation Stay

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Kathleen Crook

Claimant

Joy Elizabeth Renouf

Claimant

Planning and Environment Committee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Representation Following Arbitration Award (compulsory Purchase Compensation) / Post Arbitration, Application for Case Stated and Stay for Mediation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether arbitrators erred in law by excluding premium value from compensation for compulsory purchase
  2. 2 Whether special suitability to neighbouring owners should be considered in valuation
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of Article 9(c) of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants have an arguable case that the arbitrators may have misdirected themselves in law regarding the exclusion of premium value and the interpretation of special suitability under Article 9(c); therefore, the arbitrators are directed to state a case for the Court's decision.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings granted; arbitrators directed to state a case; costs awarded to claimants.

Orders

  • Proceedings stayed until 11 February 2005 for mediation.
  • Parties to report back to the Court on progress by 11 February 2005 unless settled earlier.