[2025] UKUT 115 (LC)

This is an appeal against what is expressed to be an interim decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), dated 23^rd April 2024.

The case came before the First-tier Tribunal, which I shall refer to as “the FTT”, by way of an application made to the FTT by the tenants of certain flats in a block of flats known as Cudweed Court. The application was made pursuant to Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and, as the tenants’ case was pleaded, challenged the reasonableness of payments demanded, by way of service charges, from the tenants by the Appellant.

The application came before the FTT, for hearing, on 15^th and 16^th April 2024. At that hearing (“the Hearing”) the FTT raised, on its own initiative, the question of whether the payments which had been demanded from the tenants were due at all, as a matter of contractual liability. In the face of the protests of the Appellant, the FTT decided, by the interim decision (“the Interim Decision”), that the hearing would have to be adjourned so that directions could be given for the determination of the issue of contractual liability which it had raised. The FTT also gave directions for the hearing of the issue of contractual liability.

The Appellant, Sovereign Network Homes, appeals against the Interim Decision with the permission of Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). For convenience, I will refer to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) as “the Tribunal”.

The Appellant says that the FTT was wrong, for a number of reasons, both to raise the issue of contractual liability and to give directions for the determination of that issue. The Appellant’s case is that the FTT should have confined itself to the pleaded issues in the application, which were limited to various grounds of challenge to the reasonableness of the relevant service charges. The Appellant also asserts that the hearing before the FTT was conducted in such a way as to render the hearing unfair, and to create the appearance of bias.

At the hearing of the appeal the Appellant was represented by Justin Bates KC and Katherine Traynor. Ms Traynor appeared for the Appellant at the Hearing. The Second Respondent, Cudweed Management Company Limited, did not appear and was not represented in the appeal because it is not directly concerned with the issue of contractual liability raised by the FTT. The parties described in the appeal as the First Respondents are the tenants who pursued the application under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to the Hearing. The lead tenant in the application was, and remains Dr Shoghik Hakobyan, who appeared in person at the hearing of the appeal, representing both herself and her fellow applicants. Dr Hakobyan was accompanied by another of the applicant tenants, Ms Claudia Labruzzo, who also addressed me. I am most grateful to the Appellant’s counsel and to Dr Hakobyan and Ms Labruzzo for their assistance, by their respective submissions, in my determination of this appeal.

The hearing of the appeal took place on 4^th March 2025. Following the hearing my attention was drawn to a further authority which was of potential relevance. My attention was also drawn to some documents in the case which the parties had not seen, and which were also potentially relevant. I invited the parties to make further submissions in writing on these matters, if they wished to so. The Appellant took up this invitation, with a short written further submission. The First Respondents, by Dr Hakobyan, also took up this invitation, with a short written further submission.