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

) came before the FTT, for a determination on the papers. There was a bundle of documents before the FTT, but there was no evidence in the form of witness statements or expert reports. The FTT had the benefit of statements of case from the parties, setting out their cases on the RTM Application. These statements of case were as follows. The RTM Application was accompanied by a statement of case. Assethold responded with a statement of case. The RTM Company served a further statement of case in reply, to which Assethold responded with a further statement of case in response.19.The essential issue which emerged from these statements of case can be summarised as follows:(1)Assethold asserted that the Property comprised two separate buildings, each of which qualified as a set of premises within the meaning of Section 72(1).(2)As such, so Assethold contended, the RTM Claim was not validly made, and the RTM Company was not validly constituted. Assethold relied upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ninety Broomfield Road RTM Co. Ltd v Triplerose Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 282 [2016] 1 WLR 275 (