Royal Sun and Alliance Insurance Ltd v London Borough of Harrow (COMPENSATION - COSTS - whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award costs in a reference for compensation under Regulation 24(8) and (9) of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations - whether compensation for injurious affection - rule 10, Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010) [2026] UKUT 197 (LC) (26 May 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) held that it had jurisdiction to award costs in a compensation reference under Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012. It treated the claim as proceedings for "injurious affection of land" within rule 10(6)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Lands Chamber) Rules 2010 and ordered the compensating authority to bear the claimant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment.

Key points

• Parties: Royal Sun and Alliance Insurance Limited v London Borough of Harrow.
• Issue: whether costs could be awarded in a TPO compensation reference under Regulation 24(8) and (9).
• Holding: yes; the Tribunal found jurisdiction under rule 10(6)(b) because the claim fell within proceedings for injurious affection of land.
• Reasoning: the refusal to permit felling led to cracking and subsidence, and the root barrier cost was treated as the consequence of that damage rather than a separate non-compensable expense.
• The Tribunal relied on BPP, Wildtree, and the earlier Burge decision; it said nothing since Burge justified a different result.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: no direct sanctions or export-control element is addressed in the judgment.

Why it matters

The decision clarifies the costs regime for statutory land-compensation claims brought after tree-preservation refusals, which can affect local-authority exposure and settlement leverage. For sovereign-risk and enforcement analysis, it shows that public authorities may face both compensation and adverse costs where their regulatory decisions trigger property damage claims.

Implications

For litigation strategy, claimants in TPO compensation disputes will likely argue costs are available where the factual loss is framed as injurious affection, while authorities will need to contest that characterization early if they want to limit costs risk. For compliance and public-law decision-making, compensating authorities should factor in potential adverse costs when refusing tree-felling consent in circumstances that may generate subsidence or similar damage.