A landowner who unsuccessfully fought a local authority's decision in the First-tier tribunal has failed in a bid to recover the costs he incurred.

Daniel Hill faces legal bills of at least £5,800 after making an unsuccessful appeal against the decision of South Cambridgeshire District Council to list his land as an asset of community value (ACV).

He went back to the tribunal to argue that the council, which had reimbursed him for earlier stages of the ACV process, should pay his subsequent legal fees incurred in the appeal.

Ruling in Hill v South Cambridgeshire District Council, Judge Harris accepted that landowners have a statutory right to apply for compensation when they suffer loss as a result of the ACV process. But she found that the question of recovering legal fees for an unsuccessful tribunal appeal was a different matter. She accepted the council’s argument that if Hill was successful, this would set a precedent and have ‘serious consequences’ for the public purse.

‘If they did so in one case, then it would be difficult to resist in other cases, which would result in funds needed for the council’s functions being redirected to pay the legal fees of anyone bringing action against the council whether or not this succeeded.’

The judge concluded that taking into account Hill’s vulnerability, the benefit to him as an individual, the benefit to the wider community and the fact that the first appeal was unsuccessful, it was reasonable, fair and proportionate for the council to have decided that the amount of compensation due to him was nil and nothing was payable.

The tribunal heard that the council had paid Hill’s legal expenses incurred prior to a review hearing in March 2024. But when the matter went to appeal, Hill issued further invoices, only to be told those costs would not be covered.

In his challenge to that decision, he cited regulation 14 of Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 to show why legal costs incurred because of the ACV process fell within the compensation regime.

Hill said he had little practical option but to instruct solicitors and argued that the council should have clearly and expressly explained to him before he incurred costs that these were not recoverable. Solicitors’ invoices had not been paid and they have commenced legal proceedings to recover their fees, so Hill’s financial liability is escalating.

The council submitted it had a wide discretion about what compensation to pay and that the fees claimed were ‘manifestly excessive’. It added that it had never made any representation that might give rise to Hill legitimately expecting he could claim compensation for his legal costs.