Case Law

Question 1

Outline the case of Antrobus No.2 v HMRC

Answer 1

• A case relating to the valuation of a property with an Agricultural Occupancy Condition (AOC).
• The Court agreed with the DV’s decision that the AOC was extremely limiting, thus the agricultural value of the dwelling was 30% less than Market Value having considered market transactions of AOC properties.

Question 2

Outline the case of Stokes v Cambridge 1961.

Answer 2

• The case related to the unlocking of access via 0.7 acres “the brown strip” to a site for development.
• The case determined that the sum payable for acquiring the ransom strip was attributable to the uplift in value of the land being developed.
• In this case, 33% of the uplift in value was decided upon, however the ransom holder’s other land would benefit from the development of the land.
• Generally, Valuers should start at 50% of the uplift in value and make adjustments according to each party’s bargaining power.

Question 3

Outline the case of Redrow Homes Ltd v Knowsley Borough Council 2014.

Answer 3

• Redrow Homes Ltd, the developer, entered a s.38 agreement with the local council under the Highways Act 1980.
• It was determined that the s38 agreement could include a commuted sum to cover the costs of future maintenance.

Question 4

Outline the case of McKenna v HMRC.

Answer 4

• Mr McKenna owned a farm and live in the farmhouse, using contractors to undertake the farming operations.
• Mr McKenna died and HMRC argued that the farmhouse was not occupied for the purposes of agriculture.
• It was determined that the contractors has full responsibility for the day-to-day farming and husbandry, thus the farmhouse was not occupied for agriculture and APR did not apply to the farmhouse.