Whitehead v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council [2017] UKFTT CR-2017-0002 (GRC) (3 August 2017)

Whitehead v Tunbridge Wells Borough Council [2017] UKFTT CR-2017-0002 (GRC) (3 August 2017)

The appellant's claim was not time-barred as long as one head of loss was still being incurred, but none of the losses claimed were sufficiently causally linked to the listing of the Royal Oak as an asset of community value, and unsupported claims lacked adequate evidence.

Citation
[2017] UKFTT CR-2017-0002 (GRC)
Parties
Appellant: Stephen Whitehead; Respondent: Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assets of Community Value, Compensation Claims, Timeliness of Claims
Administrative Law Property Law Assets of Community Value Compensation Claims Timeliness of Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Whitehead

Appellant

Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's compensation claim under regulation 14 of the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 was timely
  2. 2 Whether losses claimed were causally linked to the listing of the property as an asset of community value
  3. 3 Whether documentary evidence is required for compensation claims

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's claim was not time-barred as long as one head of loss was still being incurred, but none of the losses claimed were sufficiently causally linked to the listing of the Royal Oak as an asset of community value, and unsupported claims lacked adequate evidence.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed