PT-2018-000874 - [2025] EWHC 2796 (Ch)

The table in paragraph ‎8 above draws on the conclusions of Rostons’ report as single joint expert on valuation matters. By way of explanation:

Even though Rostons were single joint valuation experts, both Adam and Jennifer invited me to depart from their valuations in certain respects. Jennifer’s evidence was that Rostons’ valuations were in some cases at odds with (higher) offers that she had received to purchase part of the estate and suggested, therefore, that in some cases Rostons had undervalued the estate. Adam suggested that Rostons’ valuation of 49 Hough Lane was too high as it overlooks the fact that the property is landlocked and can be accessed only via the 4.5m Strip.

Adam resisted Jennifer’s suggestion that the valuation should be increased. He argued that the “offers” on which Jennifer relied were insufficiently firm to have any impact on valuation. He came close to suggesting that Jennifer had engineered a situation where friends of hers made artificially high offers with a view to influencing values and so increasing the consideration that she and others would share if Adam did indeed have an option to purchase property at probate value. Mr Troup KC realistically accepted in closing submissions that it was difficult for the court to assess the genuineness or otherwise of offers that Jennifer had received. Rostons provided their perspective on the effect of those offers in a further written report and concluded that they had no effect on value. Their analysis struck me as cogent and reasonable. I see no reason to depart from conclusions on value expressed by an independent expert.

In a similar vein, I see no reason to reduce the valuation of 49 Hough Lane. I have only Adam’s non-expert and self-interested opinion that 49 Hough Lane is indeed “landlocked” and I have no reliable alternative expert opinion as to the value of 49 Hough Lane even if Adam were correct.

In answer to questions from the parties, Rostons acknowledged in a letter of 8 July 2025 that their report overlooked that part of Giantswood benefited from outline planning permission for commercial development and so may be worth £2,595,000 although they acknowledged that this value may not be achievable as the cost of electricity connection might be high. The remainder has agricultural value only which Rostons put at £1,088,200. I have concluded that the MVVP of Giantswood is somewhere between £1,253,400 (the value in Rostons’ original report) and £3,683,200 (the value derived from their letter of 8 July 2025). I express no view on where precisely in the range the MVVP falls. That is because Rostons, having overlooked the planning permission that benefited part of Giantswood, as they accept, have not performed a rigorous valuation of that part of the land, including by considering the practicability or otherwise of securing an electricity connection to that part of the site.