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

Variation of leases - Morgan and another v Fletcher and others

Halliard Property Company Ltd v Bemont Hall and Elm Court RTM Company Ltd and other appeal

Right to Manage - The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 confers on qualifying leaseholders of flats a right to establish and join a “Right to Manage company” (RTM company) which can then exercise the management functions of the freeholder. Since the Companies Act 2006, an RTM company is required to have a governing document, known simply “the articles.” The Right to Manage Companies (Model Articles) (England) Regulations 2009  prescribe the form of articles for RTM companies in England. All new RTM companies are bound by the new articles and all existing companies have until September 30, 2010 to adopt them. The DCLG has also issued guidance on the application of the new regulations.

Ackerman and another v Lay and others

In 2000, the appellant sought to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. This application failed on the grounds that that inter alia, the appellants were not qualifying tenants for the purposes of the 1993 Act. In 2001, the appellants served a notice under s.42 of the 1993 Act, seeking to compel the respondent to grant them a new lease of the one flat which they occupied. Proceedings in respect of this notice were then stayed. In 20

Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson and others

If a landlord under a residential long lease wants to carry out works (or enter into qualifying long term agreements) in respect of which he will require leaseholders to contribute to via their service charges, then, by s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the regulations made thereunder, he will not be allowed to recover more than £250 per tenant (in the case of works) or £100 per tenant (in the case of a qualifying long term agreement, as service contracts are called in this context)

Grosvenor Estates Ltd v Prospect Estates Ltd

This case concerned the scope of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The property in question was originally constructed as a house in c.1850. The only major structural works since that date were the addition of a third and fourth floor. Since 1965 the top floor was used as residential accommodation, with the remaining 88.5% of the property used as office space, under short term sub-leases.

London Borough of Camden v The leaseholders of 37 flats at Grafton Way

Camden failed to comply with the consultation requirements. They failed to serve a relevant notice or to provide various information, including a summary of the estimates which had been obtained. In response, Camden sought dispensation from the LVT pursuant to s.20ZA Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. That application was declined. The LVT took the view that the defects were such as to render the consultation process meaningless as it had deprived the leaseholders of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Camde

Morshead Mansions Ltd v Leon Di Marco

The company was the freehold owner of a residential property in Maida Vale. That property comprised some 104 flats. Mr Di Marco was a member of the appellant company and a leaseholder of a flat in the property, indeed, each flat owner had one share in the appellant company. Mr Di Marco’s lease contained provisions for service charge computation in the normal way. The appellant company, pursuant to its Articles of Association, decided to establish a reserve fund to be used to defray the costs of the compan

Earl Cadogan v Erkman

LVT case of the month - Challenging service charges: Swanlane Estates Ltd v Woods and others

Swanlane Estates Ltd v Woods and others News on the Block is pleased welcome back Justin Bates and the LVT case of the month feature, in which he provides expert analysis on the LVT’s most significant ruling over the previous few weeks. To read more of Justin’s expert commentary, please visit www.lvtbulletin.com.

Your right to dispute insurance provisions

In the eighth series of plain-English legal articles, Yashmin Mistry, Solicitor in the Leasehold Enfranchisement Department of Brethertons LLP highlights an area of law of interest to leaseholders – insurance and the right to challenge it!

Metropolitan Property Realizations Ltd v Silver and others

The landlord argued that the second set of works had been overseen by a chartered surveyor whom the leaseholders had suggested and that they had been given an unprecedented degree of access and input into the works and that, as a result, the leaseholders should have to bear some of the ‘disallowed’ costs and that any errors in the final works should be split between the leaseholders and the freeholder and not knocked off the total service charge bill payable by the leaseholders. The Lands Tribunal reject
1
979899
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.