[2024] UKUT 120 (LC)

The appellants appeal on a number of grounds. I take them out of order for simplicity.

First, at ground 5, the applicants appeal the finding that the litigation costs incurred by the respondent in its dispute with the gym tenant and were payable as a service charge by the residential tenants. That ground is conceded and the respondent confirmed at the appeal hearing that it would refund the relevant payments made by all the residential leaseholders, not just the appellants.

Second, at ground 6, the appellants appealed the finding that the FTT had no jurisdiction so far as the years 2013 to 2020 were concerned.

Grounds 1 to 4 then go to the FTT’s decision at its paragraph 28. It is said that the FTT (1) misinterpreted the provisions of the lease, (2) failed to apply the correct test following the Supreme Court’s decision in Aviva, and (3) and (4) failed to have regard to relevant considerations when considering the reasonableness of the respondent’s apportionment. By ground (4) it is said that the FTT failed to apply section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

In what follows I therefore look first at ground 6 and then at the remaining grounds which go to the substance of the FTT’s decision at its paragraph 28.