Home Events & Training Featured Articles Directory Guides Magazines Case 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.

Majorstake Ltd v Curtis

The landlord explained that it intended to redevelop the respondent’s flat by combining it with a neighbouring flat in the adjacent block. No issue arose as to the intention to redevelop. The issue in the county court was whether or not two adjacent flats in separate blocks could be said to constitute “any premises within which [the first flat] is contained” as required by s.47. The landlord contended that the expression “any premises” was sufficiently wide to refer to the whole or part of a building. The

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

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

Munns v Collingwood

Two leaseholders applied to the LVT, saying that they should not have to pay the costs to the extent that they had increased due to the delay. The freeholder replied that the delay had been caused by the failure of the applicants to pay their service charges on time and that she had not wanted to borrow money in those circumstances. The LVT agreed with the landlord and found that she had acted reasonably in delaying the works. It was the arrears of service charges that caused the problem, not the landlord

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

Mallett & Son v Grosvenor West End Properties

The freeholder resisted the claim, stating that the properties were not “houses” within the meaning of s2(1) of the Act. The first property had been adapted for commercial use and the second property was in such a state as to be unfit for habitation. The County Court judge agreed with these submissions. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision. Neither property was a house designed for living in. The test was, whether at the time the notices were served, the premises were designed or adapted for resident

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

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

Shorter v Fairhold Ltd

He was concerned that the respondent was not carrying out its repairing and decorating obligations correctly and that this was affecting the market value of his flat. After raising his concerns with the respondent’s agents, he decided to serve a notice under s22 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and, in the course of time, apply for a manager to be appointed. The LVT agreed that there were serious problems with the internal and external decorations. The respondent had taken no part in the proceedings and, in

Swanlane Estates v Hyde Housing

It was alleged that the tenant had breached the covenant by replacing windows without the landlord’s consent. The LVT accepted that the breach had occurred and made the appropriate declaration. Analysis The role of the LVT in forfeiture is a relatively new one, introduced by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Since 28 February 2005 it has been impossible to forfeit a lease on the basis of rent, service charge or administration charge arrears unless the unpaid amount: a) exceeded £350 or b) ha

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

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

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

© 2026 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.