FirstPort managed an estate of ten blocks of flats. The Second and other Respondents were leaseholders of flats in one of the blocks,
‘Settlers Court’, with rights to access the estate’s communal areas. FirstPort provided services on the estate, including maintenance of the communal areas, for which it was entitled to levy an estate service charge. Through the ‘right-to-manage’ regime in the Act, the First Respondent, the RTM Company, acquired the right to manage the block and took on responsibility for providing services in relation to the block itself. A dispute then arose as to whether the leaseholders continued to be obliged to pay the estate service charge to FirstPort. On an application by the RTM Company, the First-Tier Tribunal held that the company had acquired the right to manage the estate and that the leaseholders need not pay the estate service charge. The Upper Tribunal dismissed FirstPort’s appeal but certified the question for the Supreme Court: ‘Where a company incorporated by leaseholders in a block of flats acquires the right to manage the block under the 2002 Act, and the leaseholders also enjoy rights over the estate in which the block is situated, does the company only acquire the right to manage the block itself, or does it also acquire the right to manage the rest of the estate?’
Held: The appeal succeeded. Gala Unity was wrongly decided
Lord Briggs
Lord Sales
Lord Leggatt
Lord Burrows
Lady Rose
[2022] UKSC 1
Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Firstport Property Services Ltd v Settlers Court Company RTM Ltd and Others UTLC 12-Aug-2019
Landlord and Tenant – Right To Manage – whether Gala Unity v Ariadne Road RTM Co Ltd decided per incuriam – appurtenant property – extent of management rights on acquisition. . .
Overruled – Gala Unity Ltd v Ariadne Road RTM Company Ltd CA 23-Oct-2012
Section 72(1)(a) of the 2002 Act 2002, which set out that the right to manage provisions applies to premises if ‘they consisted of a self-contained building or part of a building, with or without appurtenant property’, which did not require that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.671221