[2025] UKUT 39 (LC)

Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 provides a statutory right for a leaseholder-owned RTM company to manage premises to which the Chapter applies. These appeals are concerned with the qualifying rule that the statutory right is available only in respect of premises which consist of a “self-contained building or part of a building”.

The two appeals are from separate decisions of the First-tier Tribunal, Property Chamber, (the FTT) and they are concerned with four quite different premises. One appeal is about a group of modern, purpose built residential blocks in a new development in Liverpool. The other is about part of a Regency terrace and its associated mews in central London, recently restored to residential use following a major redevelopment. The timing of the two appeals is coincidental, but as they raise similar issues they have been heard together.

The first appeal concerns “The Courtyard”, “The Studios”, and “The Terrace”, three separate blocks forming part of the Plaza Boulevard development on the southern fringe of Liverpool city centre. It is no longer suggested that any of the blocks is a self-contained building in its own right, but each is said by the RTM company which bears its name to be a self-contained part of a building. By a decision published on 2 May 2024 the FTT disagreed and ruled that none of the blocks is eligible to acquire the right to manage because none is self-contained in the sense required by section 72(3) of the 2002 Act. The RTM companies are the appellants in the first appeal.

The second appeal concerns 14 Park Crescent and 8 Park Crescent Mews East in central London, which formerly housed the Bloomsbury and Marylebone County Court. For convenience I will refer to it simply as “No.14”. In 2023 14 Park Crescent RTM Co Ltd claimed the right to manage No. 14 (including the mews) on the basis that it comprises a self-contained part of a building. In a decision handed down on 18 July 2024, the FTT agreed and dismissed the objections of the immediate landlord and its superior, who are now the appellants in the second appeal.

In the first appeal the RTM companies were represented by Mr Winston Jacob, the first respondent (landlord of The Courtyard and The Studios) was represented by Ms Sonia Rai, and the second respondent (landlord of The Terrace) was represented by Mr Simon Allison. In the second appeal Mr Justin Bates KC represented both landlords and Mr James Fieldsend represented all three RTM companies. I am grateful to them all.