Homeowners lose bid for increased payout after $12m compulsory acquisition - Property bought by Government to facilitate Highway 2000 Phase2A

Two St Ann homeowners have lost their bid for a larger payout after the Supreme Court upheld a $12-million compensation award for property acquired by the Government to facilitate the construction of Phase 2A of the Highway 2000 project.

Morvick Hyde and Sheridene Drummond-Hyde had objected to the award, seeking compensation based on a valuation that estimated their Phoenix Park property at approximately $16.48 million.

However, Justice Kirk Anderson last month ruled that they failed to provide admissible evidence to support their claim that the property was worth significantly more than the amount awarded following its compulsory acquisition. The court sided with the Commissioner of Lands, who brought the matter for the determination of compensation.

The panel, which also included Mervyn Down and Norma Breakenridge, said: “Monetary sums being sought as compensation from the Government arising from a land acquisition of private property should not be expected to be awarded if seemingly plucked out of a hat. To expect otherwise is nothing more than a futile hope.”

The dispute centred on a 0.535-acre residential lot in St Ann that was compulsorily acquired as part of the Government’s highway expansion programme, aimed at improving transportation infrastructure and connectivity across the island.

The property was purchased by the couple in January 2012 for $6.5 million. At the time of the government acquisition, it contained a completed chicken coop, a partially constructed pig pen, and an unfinished split-level residence.

A survey carried out by Allison Pitter & Company revealed that while the semi-basement level of the house contained two bedrooms, a bathroom, kitchen, living room and dining area, significant portions of the structure remained incomplete. The exterior walls had not been rendered or painted, sections of the floor consisted only of concrete screed, temporary kitchen fixtures were in place, and the apex of the roof had not yet been completed.

The homeowners challenged the compensation award under sections 17 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, relying on a valuation prepared by surveyor Theo Dixon, which placed the property’s value approximately $16.48 million.

However, Anderson found serious deficiencies in the report, noting that it was undated and unsupported by sworn evidence. As a result, the court held that it could not properly be relied upon in determining the property’s market value.

Instead, the court accepted valuation evidence presented on behalf of the Commissioner of Lands by a chartered valuation surveyor who inspected the property in June and July 2013.

His report, dated February 25, 2020, assessed the property’s value at between $8 million and $8.5 million, based on its condition and prevailing market conditions at the time of acquisition.

Anderson found the valuation to be comprehensive and credible and concluded that it accurately reflected the property’s market value as of October 15, 2013, the relevant date for determining compensation.

In addition to seeking a higher valuation, the homeowners also claimed compensation for future legal fees, current legal expenses, and loss of business income.

The court rejected those claims, ruling that they either fell outside the categories of compensation permitted under the Land Acquisition Act or were unsupported by evidence.

Anderson noted that future legal fees are not recognised as a compensable head of claim under the legislation. He further ruled that the claim for loss of business income could not succeed because the property was zoned solely for residential use and any commercial activities conducted there were unauthorised.

The judge also warned against the risk of “double counting”, where claimants seek compensation for losses already reflected in the market value of the property.

In delivering the decision, Anderson stressed the importance of strict compliance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, noting that objections to compensation awards must be supported by evidence and confined to categories of loss recognised by law.

The judgment also highlighted concerns regarding the remuneration paid to assessors appointed to assist the court in land acquisition disputes.

Anderson observed that assessors are entitled to fees of no more than $20 per day under the legislation, describing the amount as “wholly inadequate” and calling for urgent legislative reform.

The court noted that the assessors involved in the case waived their entitlement to fees, a gesture that was acknowledged and appreciated by the judge.

After reviewing the evidence and submissions from both sides, the Supreme Court concluded that the $12-million award represented fair compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the property and dismissed the homeowners’ challenge.

Kristina Jones and Karessian Gray, instructed by the Director of State Proceedings, represented the Commissioner of Lands. The homeowners were represented by Everton Dewar, instructed by Brydson Campbell.

tanesha.mundle@gleanerjm.com