Logo
(0)
Subscribe
Events & TrainingFeatured ArticlesDirectoryGuidesMagazinesCase Law

Case Law

We provide summaries and analysis of important landmark legal decisions from the LVT, First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and Higher Courts affecting the residential leasehold property sector. It is a valuable resource for anyone involved in this industry.
Search Case Law Listings

Baliszewski v Harris

The LVT noted that it was “likely that a court would allow the two claims to be heard and tried together… [however]… it does not have jurisdiction to determine [the question of set-off].” Unless it could be said that the landlord had to pay the sums to the tenant as a service charge (a highly unlikely situation) then the LVT could not rule on the issue. In essence, the LVT found that it had no jurisdiction to consider set off. Analysis It is a shame that the LVT raised this argument of its own motion in a

Chater et al v London Borough of Greenwich

The LVT agreed that this was not a material error in the s20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Notice. The original s20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Notice had invited the leaseholders to inspect the contract specification. Had they done so, they would have found the references to the works which they now disputed. In any event, the items complained of were only minor, both in terms of overall expenditure and as items of work. In the circumstances, the notices complied with s20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. A

Gillibrand v Erkman

The landlord had purchased the property in 1999 but had only become the registered owner in 2005. The leaseholder argued that the landlord was unable to recover service charges incurred prior to becoming the registered owner. She further argued that the failure of the landlord to disclose its name and address within three months of becoming owner prevented the recovery of service charges The LVT disagreed. Relying on Scribes West Ltd v Ansalt [2005] 1 WLR 1847, it found that an equitable owner was entitle

Leaseholders of Alexandra Estate v London Borough of Camden

Their argument was that, had the work been done properly at the time, then the works now in dispute would have been unnecessary. The LVT disagreed, holding that the quality of earlier works was irrelevant to whether or not costs have been “reasonably incurred” in respect of later works. Analysis This argument is sometimes known as the “historic neglect” argument and is very common in service charge cases. It usually fails due to leaseholders not having sufficient evidence to make good their allegations. T

Jyothi v Lawrence

002

Fanduke Co v Qureshi and others

This was another “historic neglect” case. The tenants alleged that the scope of the works had been increased by the landlord’s failure to maintain the building in the past.
The LVT accepted that there were cirumstances where the tenants could show that the costs of works of repair had been increased by the landlord’s failure to maintain a building. However, the burden is on the tenant to show that this is so and so show that the amount of the costs has actually increased. In this case the tenants had failed to show that the scope of the works or their eventual costs had been increased because of neglect and, so, the claim failed.
 
007

London Borough of Camden v Chalcot Estate

Camden wanted to enter into a long term “partnering agreement” with a private sector partner to carry out all works of repair and maintenance to the Estate for the next 15 years. The agreement was to be funded by PFI monies. The Council sought dispensation from the consultation requirements, which they feared would render the contract unacceptable to any PFI partner. The LVT disagreed. It was not convinced that “compliance with the requirements of [the consultation process] will make this project unviabl

Portabello Pads RTM Company Ltd v UK Investments

The applicant argued that the requirement to correctly state the “relevant date” was mandatory and the error in this case rendered the counter-notice ineffective. The counter-notice was also said to be invalid as it failed to give an address for service. Finally, the applicant also argued that the “reasonable recipient” test as set out in Mannai Investment Company Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance18 was of no relevance in this matter. The respondent argued that the requirement to state a “relevant date” was

Inglis v Empire Hill Ltd

Accordingly, she applied to the LVT for the appointment of a manager. The respondent took no action until just before the hearing, when the landlord appointed new managing agents. They attended and asked for an opportunity to put things right. The new managers were a small company who had no links to RICS or ARMA. The LVT accepted that there had been a series of failures as regards the management of the property. They were concerned that the failure to manage such small items was an indication that there

Hutchings v Shattock

The applicant had not served a s22 notice. Rather, he had sent a letter to the respondent and his managing agent explaining his intention. No response was ever received, although it did become clear that the respondent was engaged in a High Court action relating to the property. There was no-one managing the property at the time of the application. The LVT therefore made the Order sought and appointed the managing agent proposed by the applicant.  Analysis A decision which appears to be totally at odds w

Denning v Beamsafe

His appointment had not been a happy one. Although it had been suggested at the initial hearing that the service charge account had a surplus of anything up to £90,000, the manager discovered that it was, in fact, heavily indebted with no operating fund at all. The terms of the appointment were insufficiently broad to allow for the sort of active management that was required and the LVT had previously refused to vary the terms of the appointment. Matters were not helped by the presence of two warring resi

Trafalgar Court RTM Company Ltd v Wells and others

The issue concerned a part of the premises which were earmarked for redevelopment and were to be turned into residential flats. The RTM company argued that these parts of the property did not fall to be considered. In any event, the RTM company intended to carry on the relevant works and would be turning the area into residential premises in the immediate future. The respondent put the RTM company to strict proof of its intentions and argued, in any event, that, regardless of the intentions, an RTM compan
1
106107108
165

Report a Case

Do you have a previously unreported case you would like to share on an anonymised basis? Want to suggest improvements? Please let us know by emailing enquiries@newsontheblock.com.

Case Law Editorial Team

Jonathan Upton
Managing Editor
Barrister, Serle Court
Justin Bates KC
Associate Editor
Barrister, Landmark Chambers

© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.

News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.

We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site you consent cookies.