Simon Adamyk successfully appears in Hill v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2026] UKFTT 00942 (GRC)

Simon Adamyk successfully appeared for South Cambridgeshire District Council (the Respondent) before the First-tier Tribunal in Hill v South Cambridgeshire District Council [2026] UKFTT 00942 (GRC) , decided by Judge Harris on 23 June 2026. The Appellant was a landowner whose land at Haslingfield, Cambridgeshire had been listed as an Asset of Community Value (“ACV”) under the Localism Act 2011. He sought compensation from the Council for the legal costs which he had incurred in mounting an earlier, unsuccessful, Tribunal appeal against the listing decision. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal in its entirety, upholding the Council’s decision that the amount of compensation payable was nil.

The central legal issue was whether the owner of land listed as an ACV can recover the costs of an unsuccessful appeal to the First-tier Tribunal by way of ACV compensation under regulation 14 of the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012. The Appellant contended that regulation 14(2) (which in broad terms allows an owner to make a claim for compensation for loss or expense incurred by reason of a listing) conferred an automatic right to reimbursement of all costs attributable to the ACV process which satisfied that test. He also argued that a Council officer had orally assured him that legal costs would be recoverable, that this was supported by later correspondence, and that the Council’s earlier reimbursement of his legal costs at the earlier stage of the internal review within the Council gave rise to a legitimate expectation of further recovery.

The Tribunal rejected the Appellant’s arguments and upheld the Council’s position on all material points. It confirmed that regulation 14(2) functions as a threshold condition which entitles an owner to submit a claim, and not as an automatic entitlement to compensation in any particular amount. The quantum of compensation remains at all times for the Council to determine in its discretion under regulation 14(1), and the Council may lawfully determine that amount to be nil. Drawing on the principle in Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 493 and the approach to ACV compensation explained by Baroness Hanham during the Regulations’ passage through Parliament, the Tribunal accepted that a council is entitled, when exercising that discretion, to take into account whether or not the relevant appeal to the Tribunal was successful.

The Appellant’s legitimate expectation arguments also failed. The Tribunal preferred the Council officer’s evidence over the Appellant’s account of an alleged oral assurance, held that the subsequent correspondence did not contain any clear assurance either, and also held that in any event a legitimate expectation cannot generate an entitlement to compensation which does not exist in the Regulations. The Tribunal further held that the Council’s prior payment of the costs of the internal review (which related to the listing determination itself) carried no implication that the costs of a subsequent, unsuccessful, external appeal would similarly be met.

Importance of the decision. This is an important authority for local authorities, owners and their advisers on the operation of the ACV compensation regime in England. It establishes that regulation 14(2) of the ACV Regulations is a gateway into a discretionary scheme for compensation rather than a freestanding source of entitlement, and that a council retains a wide discretion to determine what compensation (if any) is appropriate, including by reference to the outcome of any appeal. The decision also makes clear that a council’s prior payment of legal costs at one stage of the ACV process creates no guarantee of reimbursement at later stages, and that legitimate expectation arguments not only have to rely on a clear assurance but also face a significant obstacle when the relevant statutory scheme does not provide for the entitlement asserted. Given the frequency with which ACV listings generate compensation claims and the absence of any other reported authority directly in point, the decision will be of considerable practical importance to local authorities, owners and their advisers across England.