Case No. UKUT-26-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Numbers:-LC-2022-346

) the FTT decided that the RTM Company was entitled to acquire the right to manage the Property. Assethold says that the FTT were wrong in this decision, because the Property did not qualify as premises to which the right to manage provisions in the 2002 Act applied, within the terms of Section 72 of the 2002 Act. The RTM Company does not accept that the FTT were wrong in their decision. If the FTT were wrong, the RTM Company contends, by its cross appeal, that the Property still qualified as premises to which the right to manage provisions applied.4.As matters have developed the single point, or issue on which the appeal and cross appeal turn is a question of statutory construction. Specifically, the question is whether a part of a building can qualify as a self-contained part of a building, within the meaning of Section 72(3), if that part of the relevant building includes within it a part of the building which also qualifies as a self-contained part of the relevant building, within the meaning of Section 72(3). There appears to be no direct court or tribunal authority on this question. In any event, no such direct authority was cited to me.5.The appeal and cross appeal are made with the permission of this Tribunal (The Deputy President – Martin Rodger KC) granted on 22nd July 2022. The Deputy President directed that the appeal and cross appeal be heard by way of a review of the Decision, with a view to a rehearing.6.Unless otherwise indicated, all references to statutory provisions in this decision are references to the right to manage provisions in the 2002 Act. Where appropriate, I will use the initials