Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber
Case No. UKUT-26-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Numbers:-LC-2022-346
Fecha: 17-Ene-2023
“Broomfield”
), as authority for the proposition that an RTM company could not make an RTM claim in respect of more than one set of Qualifying Premises, as Qualifying Premises are defined in Section 72.(3)In response to this case, the RTM Company contended that the Property was quite clearly a self-contained building or self-contained part of a building, within the meaning of Section 72. The RTM Company also took the point that if the Property constituted a set of Qualifying Premises, it did not matter if the Property also contained, within itself, parts of the Property which were also Qualifying Premises. The RTM Company relied upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in 41-60 Albert Palace Mansions (Freehold) Ltd v Craftrule Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 185 [2011] 1 WLR 2425 (
- © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
- Introduction
- “the Property”
- “the 2002 Act”
- “the FTT”
- “Assethold”
- “the RTM Company”
- “the FTT Decision”
- “the Terrace”
- “the Parts”
- “the Western Part”
- Section 72
- “Qualifying Premises”
- EVELINE ROAD RTM COMPANY LIMITED
- Flat 5 Briar Court, 440 London Road, London, SM3 8JE
- the premises known as the building or part of a building containing Flats A, B, C & D at 36 Eveline Road, Mitcham CR4 3LE
- “the RTM Application”
- “Broomfield”
- “Craftrule”
- The issues in the appeal and cross appeal
- “the 1993 Act”
- “Number 38”
- “the Self-Contained Part Question”
- Should the FTT Decision be set aside?
- The Self-Contained Part Question – discussion
- The President
- Right of appeal