[2025] UKUT 111 (LC)

By their solicitors, JB Leitch, the appellants made submissions explaining the difficulties they had encountered in obtaining the cooperation of the respondent since the manager’s appointment. The manager now intended to commence proceedings to recover £89,000 said to be payable by the respondent as its contribution to the cost of repairs to the roof of the building. They pointed out that their application to vary the management order had been made before the end of the manager’s appointment and had included a request for an interim extension of the appointment while the application was being fully considered. In those circumstances the Tribunal’s decision in Eaglesham was distinguishable and the FTT should have accepted that it had jurisdiction to determine the application.

The appellants submitted that the only jurisdictional restrictions on an application to vary an order made under section 24, 1987 Act, were that the application must be made by a “person interested”, as required by section 24(9), and that it must be made while the order remained operative. In this case both those requirements were satisfied.

By analogy with the approach taken by courts to the commencement of proceedings before the expiry of a limitation period, the appellants submitted that the only relevant date was the date of the application, not the date on which it was considered by the FTT. They pointed out that, under the Civil Procedure Rules (which do not apply in tribunals) a different approach is taken to applications to extend time for compliance with court orders if the application has been made in time (i.e. before the date originally appointed for taking the required step) or out of time (after that date). The decision of Nugee J in Re Guidezone Ltd [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch) showed that the date on which an application was determined was immaterial to the question whether it was in time or not, and therefore to the basis on which it should be determined.

In later submissions, the appellants also relied on my own decision in Jevan v Athansiadi [2024] UKUT 358 (LC) which concerned the date on which an application to the FTT made without payment of the required fee is to be treated as having been made. They suggested that the same issue arises in this appeal, although they did not explain why that was thought to be the case.

On behalf of the respondent, one of its directors, Steven Wilkinson, criticised the manager for the lateness of the application and suggested that it should be refused on that ground alone. Mr Wilkinson complained that the application may have been held back deliberately in an attempt to prolong the manager’s appointment while it was considered, which he said would be an abuse of process. The building was also said to have been mismanaged since the original order and the manager had not submitted the termination report and accounts required by the order. Mr Wilkinson wished to resume management personally and to proceed with any works which were required.