Heading

The Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings,
Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)
(FTT Case Reference: LON/00AL/LDC/2021/0244)
LANDLORD AND TENANT – SERVICE CHARGES – BUILDING SAFETY ACT 2022 –
application for dispensation from consultation requirements - whether a costs condition should have been imposed as a condition of granting dispensation – whether the recovery of the costs of the application, by the service charge, was prevented by paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 – appeal allowed – decision re-made as a decision to grant dispensation on an unconditional basis, together with a determination that paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 prevented recovery of the costs from tenants holding qualifying leases
BETWEEN:
ADRIATIC LAND 5 LIMITED
Appellant
-and-
THE LONG LEASEHOLDERS AT HIPPERSLEY POINT
(listed in the Annex to this Decision)
Respondents
Re: Hippersley Point,
4 Tilston Bright Square, Felixstowe Road,
London, SE2 9DR
The Chamber President, Mr Justice Edwin Johnson
The Rolls Building
12 October 2023
Decision Date: 13 November 2023
Simon Allison, instructed by JB Leitch Limited, Solicitors, for the Appellant
The Respondents were not represented and did not appear at the hearing
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2023
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
Aster Communities v Chapman [2020] UKUT 177 (LC)
Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14; [2013] 1 WLR 854
Marshall v Northumberland & Durham Property Trust Ltd [2022] UKUT 92 (LC)
Conway v Jam Factory Freehold Ltd [2013] UKUT 592 (LC)
Re: SCMLLA (Freehold) Limited [2014] UKUT 0058 (LC)
Kostal UK Ltd v Dunkley and others [2021] UKSC 47
URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 772
Wilson v First County Trust Limited (No. 2)[2003] UKHL 40; [2004] 1 AC 816
Adriatic Land 3 Limited v Residential Leaseholders of Waterside Apartments (MAN/30UG/LSC/2021/0044 – 27th June 2023)
Batish and others v Inspired Sutton Limited and others
(LON/00BF/HYI/2022/0002 – 13th January 2023)
Waite and others v Kedai Limited
(LON/00AY/HYI/2022/0005 & 0016 – 9th August 2023)
Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593
- Heading
- Introduction
- Representation at the hearing
- Further submissions
- Relevant background
- The Original Decision
- The Reviewed Decision
- The grounds of appeal
- My jurisdiction in relation to the appeal
- The Section 20C Applications
- Can the decision of the FTT to impose the Costs Condition be upheld? – Analysis
- Is the recovery of the Costs affected by Paragraph 9? – Analysis
- 156, In keeping with this objective, it seems to me that the purpose of the restrictions (or limitations) in Schedule 8 is simply to provide that service charges for certain “things” , to use the lang
- What, if anything, should be done about the Section 20C Applications?
- Summary of my conclusions
- Should the decision to impose the Costs Condition be set aside?
- Should the Reviewed Decision be remitted or re-made and, if so, on what terms?
- Conclusions
![[2023] UKUT 271 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)