![[2024] UKUT 00301 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png){kind=logo}
Issues
Issues
Comparable transactions
The dispute in this appeal is not for want of evidence – there were available to the experts 20 transactions on 18 houses around Chester Square. In their statement of agreed facts, the experts narrowed these down to five transactions upon which they both placed weight, and they each relied on an additional two (Mr Alderton additionally relied upon the sale of a house in South Eaton Place, some distance from Chester Square, but given the amount of evidence in the square I have not placed any weight on that). Apart from no.s 13 and 80 Chester Square, they are all inner-terraced houses.
Shown on the plan above (with the appeal property shown edged red) they are as follows. The five joint comparables, with their dates of exchange of contracts and prices, were:
20 Chester Square | August 2014 | £15,300,000 |
10 Chester Square | October 2014 | £15,000,000 |
13 Chester Square | July 2016 | £15,000,000 |
62 Chester Square | July 2017 | £14,500,000 |
70 Chester Square (long leasehold) | April 2015 | £10,500,000 |
August 2017 | £20,671,295 |
In addition to the above, Mr Alderton relied upon the following transactions:
87 Chester Square | April 2017* | £11,500,000 |
72 Chester Square | November 2017 | £12,800,000 |
*date of completion
Mr Nesbit considered there were three transactions which were his ‘principal and key’ evidence. In addition to no.13, above, he relied on the following two sales:
2 Chester Square | December 2018 | £8,000,000 |
80 Chester Square | November 2018 | £18,000,000 |