NOTB 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

Edlington Properties v JH Fenner

The lessee contended that the building was inadequate and that, by building a factory of that nature, the claimant was in breach of contract. The freehold was subsequently sold to a third party, who in turn sold it on to a fourth party. The fourth party claimed for rent due under the respondent’s tenancy. The respondent contended that it was able to set off a damages claim against the original landowner against the fourth party’s claim for rent. At trial, the Judge disagreed with this submission and the

London Borough of Enfield v All long leaseholders

In February 2005, the contract was terminated by the contractor. Enfield found themselves in a difficult position. To re-tender the contract would take at least 6 months and, clearly, works needed to be completed in that time. Ultimately, it decided to offer the contract to the company who had come second on the original tendering process. Enfield then applied for dispensation in respect of this second contract. The LVT refused to grant dispensation. It was convinced that there was insufficient time for a

Witham Court Management Company Ltd v Deftbrent Ltd

The LVT found that it had insufficient evidence to determine that the landlord’s quotations were unreasonable, despite the fact that it was larger than the quotes obtained by the tenants. The LVT noted that there might be many reasons why a landlord would prefer one company over another and, where, as here, the lease gave him the right nominate an insurer, this would not be challenged so long as the prices he obtained were “competitive”. Despite this, the LVT awarded the applicant £100 in costs, holding

Aelprop v Lakin

The leaseholder invited the LVT to make an order under Schedule 12 Paragraph 10 – for £500 in penal costs. The LVT granted this request. The legal proceedings taken by the freeholder had been premature and a more reasonable person would have resolved the matter by negotiation. The leaseholder had no choice but to take legal advice and, in those circumstances, the freeholder should pay the full £500. Analysis The LVT’s power to award (albeit limited) costs is rarely used. Of the many criticisms that can be

Earl Cadogan v 27/29 Sloane Gardens Ltd

The Lands Tribunal was invited to clarify the approach to be taken when construing leases. The freeholder contended that the LVT had in this case, and, indeed, in many others, had fallen into error by running two separate legal rules into one and simply saying that service charge provisions should be interpreted ‘strictly and against landlords’. The Lands Tribunal agreed. There are two distinct rules to apply when determining the meaning of service charge provisions in a lease. The first rule is that the

Ferry Investments v Saunders

The respondent leaseholder had challenged a number of items. During the course of the hearing he requested an adjournment. When this was refused he threatened to leave and was only convinced to stay when he was told that he would face difficulties with an appeal. The respondent then failed to attend the adjourned hearing. The LVT indicated that it was willing to award the full £500 under Schedule 12 Paragraph 10, but invited further written submissions. Analysis Unless the respondent apologised for his a

Guy & others v Kinch and another

The applicant argued that landlords could not just leave insurance matters in the hands of their brokers and take no active steps to ensure that lessees got value for money and cited another LVT decision, Flat 2, 67 Station Road, Sidcup9 in support. The LVT accepted this submission. In the absence of a detailed explanation from the brokers setting out what attempts had been made to obtain a competitive market premium, the figures charged could not be allowed to stand and were reduced. Analysis This is an

Whiteley & others v Slora Construction Company

The applicants applied for a determination under s27A of their obligation to pay service charges for various years since 1998. They alleged that the costs had been increased due to the delay and past neglect of the landlord in carrying out repairing works.
The application ultimately failed for want of evidence. The LVT had given a direction to the effect that the applicants should set out the amount by which they alleged the neglect had caused the costs to rise. They had failed to do so. The applicants had been told of the need for expert evidence, but had failed to secure any. The LVT was able to make some reductions for previous disrepair, but only on the basis of concessions made by the freeholder.
007

G&O Investments v Granfield Investments

The application was accordingly made and granted. The applicant had given the tenants several opportunities to comment on the proposed works, but these invitations had not been taken up. The failure to comply with the regulations was a genuine error and the works had already been completed to a sufficient standard. Analysis Given that the LVT had invited the applicants to seek dispensation, it would have been surprising if that application had been rejected. It is also another example of the growing trend

Fisher v Thurloe Properties Ltd

Analysis This is a fascinating decision and, if right, might suddenly make the job of LVT appointed managers much easier. One of the enduring problems of managers is that the lease fails to give them the powers necessary to remedy any serious problems – for example, unless a lease allows for borrowing, the manager will be dependent on service charge contributions in order to carry out his functions. This decision suggests that there is an answer to this problem – the LVT shall simply confer additional po

Angel Properties v Lessees of Blocks A, B and C, the Jam Factory, 27 Green Walk

In respect of the projected costs for 2005, the lease required “the surveyor, acting as an expert and not an arbitrator” to calculate the sums which would be due. Due to a change of managing agents, there was no surveyor in place at the relevant time, and the demands were calculated by the financial controller. In relation to the costs for 2004, the LVT found for the landlord. A firm of accountants had been employed to audit the accounts, and they had stated that the accounts were a “fair summary of the c

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council v Skiggs and others

The Leaseholders had applied to the LVT for a determination of the payability of service charges following a major works scheme. The freeholder was largely successful before the LVT but the LVT decided that s27A(1)(d) and (e), it had the jurisdiction to order that (a) the leaseholders need not pay for at least three months (b) that no interest could be charged in the interim period and (c) if matters could not be resolved, it would impose a payment mechanism on the parties. The Lands Tribunal upheld the f
1
111112113
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

© 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.