Norwich City Council v Marshall

<p> <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> The respondent was a leaseholder of the appellant city council, having purchased his flat under the Right to Buy provisions. He challenged a management charge of £40 per annum which the appellant levied across its leasehold properties. Before the LVT he had been successful and the LVT had accepted that the lese, as drafted, was not sufficiently clear so as to confer a right to the £40 charge. In particular, it relied upon the well known passage from Gilje v Charlesgrove <br><br><br> in which Laws LJ held that “The landlord seeks to recover money from the tenant. On ordinary principles there must be clear terms in the contractual provisions said to entitle him to do so. The lease moreover was drafted, or proffered, by the landlord. It falls to be construed contra proferentem.”<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> The appellant appealed to the Lands Tribunal and contended that this was too restrictive an approach. Management costs did not fall to be considered in quite the same manner. Reliance was placed on London Borough of Brent v Hamilton <br><br><br><br><br><br><br> and Wembley National Stadium Ltd v Wembley London Ltd <br><br><br><br><br><br><br> as authority for the proposition that, if a lease specifies certain types of service are to be provided, it must include a power to recover management fees relating to the same. The Lands Tribunal agreed and allowed the appeal. <br><br><br><br><br></p>