[2023] UKUT 153 (LC)

We have already alluded to the concept of ‘value for money’ in paragraph 29 above and this concept is central to a claim for permanent loss. Mrs Okell described the respondent's position as being ‘that the claimant is deemed to have obtained value for money for the relocation property and therefore the increased occupational costs are not to be taken into account in the assessment of compensation’. There is a presumption that when alternative premises are taken, either freehold or by lease, the claimant obtains value for money in respect to the purchase price or rent payable and suffers no continuing financial loss once any short term disturbance claim has been accounted for. However, this presumption is rebuttable, and we have already set out above the comments of Brandon LJ in Bibby in that connection.

In determining whether the claimant should be compensated for permanent loss of profit arising from the additional overheads incurred in the relocation property we must first determine if there were any suitable alternatives available and therefore any possibility of not incurring the increased operating costs associated with it. If there were no alternatives to the property to which the claimant ultimately relocated, we must determine whether there is any benefit to be derived from the extra costs associated with it. If not, then the claimant should be compensated.

We commence that process by looking at the alternative properties that were available to the claimant.