Big matches in tenancy litigation, the guest list from hell & beware the client
TENANCY DIVISION
The season started with Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson [2013] UKSC 14, [2013] All ER (D) 48 (Mar) (see “The long game"). A landlord’s failure to comply with the service charge consultation requirements of s 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) and subordinate legislation, however serious, would not justify refusal of dispensation from the requirements when the landlord applied for it to a leasehold valuation tribunal so long as there was no relevant prejudice to the tenant or the tenant could be compensated for it by dispensation conditions. Landlords congregate on the victory bus.
Then along came Phillips v Francis [2012] EWHC 3650 (Ch) (see “Difficult facts making bad law”) where there may be a replay. For the purpose of ascertaining whether “qualifying works” reached the threshold to trigger the LTA 1985, s 20 consultation requirements, the landlord now needed to aggregate all the “qualifying works” in any one year without separation into categories. Landlords weep.
Two further matches
