Heading

Case No: LC-2023-467
AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)
FTT REF: LON/00AJ/LRM/2022/0011
28 October 2024
TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007
AN APPEAL FROM THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)
LANDLORD AND TENANT – RIGHT TO MANAGE – can a tenant under a long equitable lease be a qualifying tenant – construction of section 79(2) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the effect of procedural failings
BETWEEN:
AVON FREEHOLDS LIMITED
Applicant
-and-
CRESTA COURT E RTM COMPANY LTD
Respondents
7 – 26 Cresta Court,
Hanger Lane,
London W5
Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke
6 June 2024
Mr Justin Bates KC and Ms Sophie Gibson for the applicant, instructed by Scott Cohen Solicitors
Mr Winston Jacob instructed under the Public Access scheme for the respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2024
The following cases are referred to in this decision:
A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 27; [2018] QB 571 [2024] 3 WLR 601
Assethold Limited v 7 Sunny Gardens Road RTM Company Ltd [2013] UKUT 509
Avon Freeholds Limited v Regent Court RTM Co Ltd [2013] UKUT 213 (LC); [2013] L&TR 23
Avon Ground Rents Limited v Canary Gateway (Block A) RTM Company Limited [2020] UKUT 358 (LC)
Elim Court RTM Company Limitedv Avon Freeholds Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 89; [2018] QB 571
Natt v Osman [2014] EWCA Civ 1520; [2015] 1 WLR 1536
Pearson v Alyo (1990) 60 P & CR 56
R v Soneji [2005] UKHL 49; [2006] 1 AC 340
RM Residential Ltd v Westacre Estates Ltd [2024] UKUT 56 (LC)
Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited v Oak Investments RTM Company Limited) [2005] RVR 426
Triplerose Limited v Mill House RTM Company Limited [2016] UKUT 80 (LC); [2016] L&TR 23
Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) LR 21 Ch D 9 CA
- Heading
- Introduction
- The legal background
- Policy and case law about the right to manage
- The registration of leases
- The factual background to the appeal
- The decision of the FTT
- The appeal
- More about the factual basis of the appeal
- Was Ms O’Connor a qualifying tenant? The appellant’s arguments
- The respondent’s arguments
- Further submissions about A1 (Sunderland)
- Discussion
- If Ms O’Connor was a qualifying tenant, did failure to serve a notice of invitation to participate invalidate the claim notice?
- The evolution of the law relating to procedural defects in the process of acquiring the right to manage
- The Supreme Court’s decision in A1 (Sunderland)
- The arguments about the second issue in the appeal
- The written representations after A1 (Sunderland)
- Discussion and conclusion about the second issue in the appeal
- Conclusion on the second issue in the appeal
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 335 (LC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_lnJS4Uj.png)