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

Make me an honest offer ‘ Cadogan v Morris reconsidered

A key issue for tenants serving notice on their landlords to purchase their freehold or extend their lease under the provisions of the 1993 Act will always be the offer figure put forward in their initial notice. ‘If the offer figure is too low, the claim will be invalid’ is the conventional wisdom. But is this quite correct? Mark Chick considers the landmark ruling…

The work of the LVT in the south

A much greater difference lies between that done in central London (what the Court of Appeal in Earl Cadogan v Sportelli [2007] EWCA Civ 1042 called the Prime Central London area or PCL) and the work that the tribunal does in the rest of the country, including London suburbs. As Siobhan McGrath, Senior President, mentioned in her previous article, the greatest concentration of enfranchisement applications is in London. That is not surprising, for the legislation primarily addresses the sort of tenures th

Norwich City Council v Marshall














The respondent was a leaseholder of the appellant city council, having purchased his flat under the Right to Buy provisions. He challenged a management charge of £40 per annum which the appellant levied across its leasehold properties. Before the LVT he had been successful and the LVT had accepted that the lese, as drafted, was not sufficiently clear so as to confer a right to the £40 charge. In particular, it relied upon the well known passage from Gilje v Charlesgrove


in which Laws LJ held that “The landlord seeks to recover money from the tenant. On ordinary principles there must be clear terms in the contractual provisions said to entitle him to do so. The lease moreover was drafted, or proffered, by the landlord. It falls to be construed contra proferentem.”







The appellant appealed to the Lands Tribunal and contended that this was too restrictive an approach. Management costs did not fall to be considered in quite the same manner. Reliance was placed on London Borough of Brent v Hamilton






and Wembley National Stadium Ltd v Wembley London Ltd






as authority for the proposition that, if a lease specifies certain types of service are to be provided, it must include a power to recover management fees relating to the same. The Lands Tribunal agreed and allowed the appeal.




Earl Cadogan and other v Pitts and another; Earl Cadogan and another v Sportelli and another

(a) a sum representing the ground rent lost by the freeholder as a result of enfranchisement; (b) the “marriage value” which is - in effect - the additional value of the property to the leaseholder as opposed to any other person who might purchase the freehold; (c) the “hope value” which is the value of the property to a notional third party purchaser and which might include the prospect of selling the freehold to the tenant at a later date and for an enhanced price. It is particularly relevant in cases w

Cahalane v LB Wandsworth

The appellant contended that she was not, as a matter of lease construction, required to pay for works to other windows. She contended that she was only liable to pay for her own windows and that, as no works had been done to them, nothing was payable. This argument was dismissed by the LVT but permission to appeal was granted by the Lands Tribunal. The President (George Bartlett QC) dismissed the appeal. On a true construction of the lease, the appellant was obliged to contribute to the costs of the work

Grosvenor Estate Belgravia v Davis

The LVT granted both applications for permission to appeal. The leaseholders took the point that the landlord could not be granted permission, as the application was made outside of the relevant time limits. The Lands Tribunal rejected this argument. The LVT had power to extend the period in which permission to appeal should be sought. When it granted permission to both parties, it made plain that it was granting permission notwithstanding the fact that the landlord had applied out of time. However, a pa

Earl Cadogan v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd; Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Aggio and others

The appellants argued that any lessee under a long lease of property which included a flat could be a qualifying tenant of that flat unless there was an under lessee who was himself a qualifying tenant. The respondents denied this and argued that a qualifying tenant had to be a tenant of the flat and nothing else. It was said that both the appellants were not tenants of a flat and that property investors, such as the appellants, were not to be permitted to make use of the provisions of the 1993 Act. The H

Bhambhani v Willowcourt Management Co (1985) Limited

She appealed – successfully – to the Lands Tribunal where it was held that the lease contemplated a default figure of £100 per annum, but which could be increased if a surveyor’s certificate was provided, as provided for under the lease. In any event, there was no time limit for the provision of the certificate and if one was obtained now then the default figure of £100 could be displaced. Analysis Two points clearly emerge from this decision. Firstly, landlords get themselves into needless difficulties w

McKibbin and others v Phoenix Housing Association

The LVT held that the limitation period was 6 years. An application by a tenant under s.27A Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was to determine whether he or she has overpaid in a service charge year. If she has overpaid, then she has a restitutionary claim for monies had and received. The limitation period for such a claim is 6 years. Analysis With all due respect to the LVT, their analysis in this case was confusing and difficult to follow. The question of limitation periods and LVT applications is a difficul

Dartmouth Court Blackheath Ltd v Berisworth Ltd

The landlord transferred a caretakers office, electricity substation and a number of the garages to the defendant company. He then leased the airspace above the roof, the lightwell, the basement rooms and a small area at the rear to the property. The tenants contended that some or all of these transfers were caught by Part 1 of the 1987 Act and they should have been given first refusal. The High Court found for the tenants in part. One of the main purposes of Part 1 of the 1987 Act was to enable tenants t

Auger and others v London Borough of Camden

The “Partnering Agreement” was said to be an agreement with one or more (as yet unidentified) contractors for the delivery of capital works over a period of years. The effect is to agree unit costs for works, subject to inflation. It appeared that contractors would be guaranteed a minimum level of work. The “Framework Agreement” would deal with works not covered by the Partnering Agreement, including minor repair works and emergency works. There would be no guarantee of work to any particular contractor.

Breach of covenant Re: 19 Snowdrop Street, Liverpool, L5 7RT

“within 28 days of any assignment, charge, underlease or sub-underlease or any transmission or other devolution of any interest in or relating to the Property to give notice to the Landlord of such deed or document or transmission or devolution and to pay the Landlord’s solicitor’s charges of £25.00 together with value added tax thereon for the registration of every such document.” The tenants were not the original parties to the lease. However, it was common ground that, upon the purchase of the leas
1
9899100
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.