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

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

Key Flats Ltd v Commercial Holdings and others

At the hearing, Mr X gave evidence and attempted to do so as an expert. The LVT denied his ability to give expert evidence. He was too closely entwined with the interests of the Respondent companies to be able to give a sound and objective judgment. Analysis This case makes an important point. Can someone with professional qualifications act as an expert and advocate? It frequently happens in valuation proceedings that one person presents the case and gives expert evidence and, in such cases, it is open

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

Exmouth Estate v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

The leaseholders applied for a determination of their service charges for 2002 arising out of a major works scheme to a housing estate. The terms of the lease provided that the lessees were obliged to maintain, repair and renew the windows and doors. The freeholder was obliged to maintain the structure of the building.
These clauses were argued to be contradictory. The obligation to maintain the main structure includes an obligation in respect of the windows15. In addition, the properties were Right to Buy leases and, by virtue of s183(2) and 183(3) Housing Act 1985 there was an implied covenant by the landlord to repair the structure and exterior of the flat, including the windows. The question, therefore, was whether the windows were the leaseholders responsibility (as one reading of the lease provided) or the freeholders (as another reading of the lease, taken with the statutorily implied covenants, provided).
The LVT accepted the submission of the freeholder that, where there was any ambiguity, the lease should be construed so as to give priority to the obligations implied by statute.
Analysis
The leaseholders were unrepresented in this case and so it seems the LVT accepted this submission without having the benefit of argument. Regardless of whether or not it is right, it is a timely reminder of the importance of checking for statutorily implied terms, especially when dealing with Right to Buy leases.
007

Maunder Taylor v Joshi

The LVT disallowed this approach and took the view that, as the charges were not authorised under the terms of the lease, they were not recoverable costs. The manager appealed to the Lands Tribunal. The Lands Tribunal took a different approach. In its view, the right of the manager to be paid arose not from the terms of the lease but from his appointment as a manager. In the instant case, the management order clearly set out the mechanism and basis for payment and, therefore, the costs were payable in ac

Upper Brook Street RTM Company Ltd v Aylwen

The Respondent, through her solicitors, purported to serve a counter notice. The counter notice was not in the form prescribed in the Right to Manage (Prescribed Particulars and Forms) (England) Regulations 2003. The LVT determined that the failure to use the prescribed form was fatal. It is a mandatory requirement to comply with the Regulations and s84 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Any failure to comply with any of the requirements would invalidate the notice. 003

Argyll Mansions v Crawford

The applicant was successful in its application and sought an award for costs. The LVT awarded £500 under Schedule 12, Paragraph 10. Analysis If the previous case represented conduct which well deserved punishment in costs, it is hard to see how the LVT thought it was appropriate in this case. The respondent had taken no part in proceedings. On the applicant’s own case she refused to open her door and had last spoken to the applicant’s agents in 2002. Her mental capacity was in doubt. Can it really be sai

Rymer v The Court Group of Companies

It had been determined that the legal fees charged to her accounts in 2002, 2003 and 2004 were properly charged and that interest could be charged on those amounts. A s20C order was made, limiting the landlord to 50% recovery of its costs of those proceedings. A sum of £5,000 had then been paid by the applicant to the respondent, marked “in full and final settlement.” The tenant sought to challenge her service charge liability, including the legal costs for 2003, 2004 and the costs awarded as part of the

Johnstone v McGroarty

He applied for a manager to be appointed. The LVT had no hesitation in making the order. It was found as a fact that the landlord had failed to maintain his obligations for at least 14 years and that this had caused considerable hardship to the applicant. In particular, it had prevented him selling his home. The new manager was questioned about his experience and, having been found suitable, was appointed for two years. Analysis Persuading the LVT to appoint a manager can be a difficult process. However,

Dr & Mrs Schilling v Canary Riverside Properties

The tenants’ service charge appeal had been dismissed but the landlords’ service charge appeal had achieved some success. A second appeal by the landlord, in relation to the costs incurred and the LVT’s order under s20C, was dismissed on the ground that the landlord had not, at that stage, complied with the terms of the lease as regards the mechanism to be applied when demanding service charges. However, although the Lands Tribunal had rejected the appeal, it had been deeply critical of the LVT’s logic an

Moat Housing v Chatfield Property

It was a very simple dispute and the LVT directed that it be dealt with on the papers. The Respondent failed to comply with the Directions and failed to submit any documents. The LVT found that this amounted to unreasonable behaviour and ordered the Respondent to pay £300 in costs immediately. 001

Roberts v Whitepoint Properties Limited

In any event, the allegations it made were all under consideration by another LVT in relation to a s27A application. The applicants attempted to rectify their error by serving a new s22 notice. However, this was served after the s24 application had been made. The LVT held that it had no jurisdiction to hear this matter. The second notice could not save the process as it was served after the s24 process had started.  Analysis The procedure for appointing a manager is not particularly difficult, and it is r
1
107108109
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.