PROVING THINGS 71: NO EVIDENCE AT ALL: NO DAMAGES AT ALL

November 6, 2017 · by · in Civil evidence, Damages

In Khan v Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council [2017] UKUT 432 (LC) we see another examples of a total failure to prove damages.  I include it as another example of a party attending a hearing with no evidence at all to prove a claim for damages. It encapsulates the basic rule – no evidence, no damages.

THE CASE

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chambers) was assessing compensation due to a house-owner after compulsory purchase. The evidence was that the house  had been empty and derelict prior to it being subject to compulsory purchase.  The house-owner claimed the loss of capital value and also a claim for lost rent.

THE CLAIM FOR LOST RENT

The Tribunal (P D McCrea FRICS) considered the valuation evidence as to the capital value of the house.  The claim for loss of rental income was then considered.

“Loss of rent
26.         The claim includes £22,815 for loss of rent during the shadow period of the CPO.  Mr Stevenson said that this period was from December 2005 to the valuation date, and calculated the loss of rent as follows:
          468 weeks at £80 per week at 75% to reflect management and voids.
27.         There is a mathematical error in this calculation, since 468 weeks at £80 per week is £37,440, which less 25% is £28,080.  Mr Stevenson repeats his calculation in several places, making a typing error unlikely.  His end figure of £22,815 would actually be the product of a weekly rate of £60 per week.  His erroneous total claim figure does not help solving the mystery, since this would point to £27,080. However, it is unnecessary for me to decide whether he meant £60 per week – amounting to £22,815 – or £80 per week – amounting to £28,080, since I dismiss this element of the claim for several reasons.  First, while Mr Stevenson relied on Shun Fung this element of the claim fails one of the conditions set down by Nichols LJ in that decision – that there must be a direct causal link between the acquisition and the loss in question.  No such link has been proved.  There is no evidence that, after a long period of the property lying empty, the claimant had decided to refurbish it and would have done so had it not been for the scheme.  Secondly, the details of the claim were entirely speculative.  There was no evidence in support of the rental income level (whichever it was), or choice of deduction for management costs and voids. I make no award of loss of rent in this claim.”

 

RELATED POSTS: THE PROVING THINGS SERIES

 

Tags: , ,