Case Law

The personal circumstances, knowledge and prejudice caused to a freeholder served with a defective s.13 notice were of no significance when assessing whether or not the notice was valid. The approach of the court is no longer to look to whether the requirements of the statute were mandatory or directory but to assess the purpose and importance of the statutory requirement in the context of the statutory scheme as a whole.

 In a collective enfranchisement claim, in order for a leaseback claim to be successful under s.36 of and paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 to the 1993 Act, the relevant units must have existed as units in which a leasehold interest could properly be created when the initial notice is served by the nominee purchaser. 

The tenants of two blocks of flats (St James Mansions and St Stephens Mansions) set up two companies (“St James RTM” and “St Stephens RTM”) seeking the right to manage. 

In 2009, J was appointed by the LVT as manager and receiver of a block of 12 flats owned by E, the appellant freeholder, following an application by Ls, the respondents and leaseholders.

There is no requirement that the potential membership of a proposed tenants’ association must be at least 60% for a certificate of recognition to be granted under section 29 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

The Anchor Trust was the freehold owner of a retirement complex consisting of 28 flats and eight bungalows for people with low or no income. 

(1) The effect of amendments made to s.9(1A) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 by the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was to repeal the preserved rights of lessees with pre-1986 lease extensions to rely on the Court of Appeal decision in Mosley v Hickman...

The Upper Tribunal has the power to consider the terms of acquisition including whether there should be leasebacks, in light of the current circumstances.

A clause in a head lease which provided that the apportionment of expenditure was to be determined by the Landlord or its surveyor was rendered void by s.27A(6) of the 1985 Act.  

 On the proper application of the corresponding date rule as expounded in Dodds v Walker [1981] 2 All ER 609 (HL), the FTT was wrong to hold that a claim notice was invalid by reason of the specified date notsatisfying the requirements of s.80(7) of the 2002 Act.

A tenant’s covenant to pay “by way of service charge the due proportion as hereafter defined of the expenditure incurred or to be incurred …” (emphasis added) enabled the appellant landlord to recover servicecharges on account.

The lessee of a flat on the ground floor of a building was obliged to contribute to the cost of maintaining a lift in a separate part of the building to which she had no access and could not use..