[2024] EWHC 3625 (TCC)

It is not necessary for me to consider the issues which have arisen in the Part 8 Claim because they are now of no consequence. I shall, therefore, not analyse the merits of the claim in any detail.

However, for the sake of completeness, I record that I would have allowed the Part 8 Claim.

Principally, my reason for doing so would have been that Mr Rees and Mr Eckersley agreed that Plot C should be valued based on the Planning Permission for 7 dwellings, 2 of which were to be affordable tenure housing, whereas Mr Wilson incorrectly stated that the Planning Permission was for 7 dwellings and that the affordable housing element was offset by a separate payment in lieu of the affordable tenure housing. On those bases, the parties’ experts agreed that Mr Wilson’s calculation of gross development value and build costs was overstated.

In my judgment, these were substantial errors which had the potential to affect the outcome of the determination. They were recognisable without extensive investigation and indeed they were identified in the parties’ experts’ joint report. The errors will inevitably have had a material effect on the valuation produced by the expert.

I would also have had considerable sympathy with Orchard House’s argument that the expert had exceeded his jurisdiction by valuing the entirety of Plot C when Plot G had already been transferred to Orchard House.