Miltonland Ltd v Platinum House (harrow) Rtm Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Floyd |
| Judgment Date | 17 May 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 732 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | C3/2015/2683 |
| Date | 17 May 2016 |
[2016] EWCA Civ 732
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
(LANDS CHAMBER)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Floyd
C3/2015/2683
Mr A Radevsky (instructed by Brethertons LLP) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Ms M Madjirska-Mossop (instructed by Mayfield Law Ltd) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) of 15 June 2015. The Upper Tribunal was itself considering an appeal from a decision of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Residential Property, which dismissed a contention by the applicant (before me) that a claim notice under Chapter 1 of part 2 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was invalid.
In short, the objection to the claim notice was that in addition to specifying the building in respect of which the right to manage was, and could be, claimed, the claim notice also included within it a yard adjacent to the building over which there was a dispute as to whether the right to manage could be claimed. The issue as described in the grant of permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was:
"whether the claim was invalidated by the inclusion of a parcel of land over which the RTM company was not entitled to acquire the right in the claim notice…"
The claim notice is set out in paragraph 7 of the Upper Tribunal's decision. It said that the company claimed to:
"… acquire the right to manage Platinum House, Lyon Road, Harrow, and appurtenant property (within the area edged in red on freehold plan, NGL88768). (the premises)."
The notice went on:
"The company claims that the premises are ones to which chapter 1 of the 2002 Act applies on the grounds that the premises (a) consist of a self-contained building or part of a building, with or without appurtenant property, (b) they contain 165 flats held by qualifying tenants, and (c) the total number of flats held by such tenants is not less than two thirds of the total number of flats contained in the premises."
The Upper Tribunal examined the legal position in paragraphs 16 to 19 of its determination. At paragraph 16 they referred to Gala Unity limited v Ariadne Road RTM Company Limited [2011] UKUT 425 (LC), a decision of Mr Bartlett QC. In that case the tribunal held that the effect of section 72(1)(a) of the 2002 Act is...
To continue reading
Request your trial