WKD Dogs: What is your Land Worth?

When the State takes private land for a major infrastructure project, the law requires the dispossessed owner to be compensated for the value of their loss. Under the principle of equivalence, the former owner is entitled to neither more nor less than their actual loss. What that principle of equivalence means in practice, and how it is measured, was at the centre of a five-day hearing before the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in March 2026.

When the State takes private land for a major infrastructure project, the law requires the dispossessed owner to be compensated for the value of their loss. Under the principle of equivalence, the former owner is entitled to neither more nor less than their actual loss. What that principle of equivalence means in practice, and how it is measured, was at the centre of a five-day hearing before the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in March 2026.

The case concerned a specialist dog-training business (WKD Dogs Ltd) whose Staffordshire farm was compulsorily acquired for the HS2 line between the West Midlands and Crewe.  WKD Dogs Ltd valued its claim at some £8 million.  

The value of the land itself was agreed; the core issues related to the value of the business itself.

The first issues related to the "shadow losses": how much of the decline in the business in the years before acquisition was caused by the threat (or ‘shadow’) of the scheme. This turned on complex issues related to causation, as HS2 argued that the COVID-19 pandemic would have disrupted WKD Dogs Ltd business model anyway. 

The second was the extinguishment value: what the business was worth when it was lost. This was no easy task, given that none of the parties could point to a sale of a comparable business in the relevant period. In addition, the parties disputed whether a discount should be made for the salary which the director received from WKD Dogs Ltd, a matter on which there was considerable diverging case-law.

The hearing ranged across witnesses of fact, expert canine evidence on the dog market, and forensic accountancy. It drew national press coverage, including in the Telegraph.

As a sign of FTB’s unrivalled expertise in the field of compulsory purchase, every barrister instructed, on both sides, was from Francis Taylor Building.

Commenting on the case, Jeffrey Chu said “One of the most interesting parts about being a barrister is preparing for cases involving expert evidence. This case, which called not only for forensic accountancy but also expert canine evidence, is a great illustration of the breadth of specialist topics that can arise in the context of compulsory purchase and compensation. It was incredibly rewarding to be working on a case of such factual and legal complexity within the first few months of tenancy”.

Compulsory purchase and compensation work of this kind is a long-standing part of practice at Francis Taylor Building.

Back to Case Notes