Regina v London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, ex parte Daejan Properties Ltd: CA 12 Jul 2001

The tribunal could only consider an application to review the reasonableness a landlord’s service charge to the extent that it remained unpaid. Both the county court and the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear such claims, but the provisions for the tribunal required the charges to be ‘alleged to be payable’ and that could not be said if they had been paid. A restitutionary order could only be made by the county court, and if the action proceeded, there would be a multiplicity of actions. Since each parties costs would remain irrecoverable, and such an investigation might extend back over several years, and a great deal of money could be wasted. There was also the danger that the limitation period would be disapplied because that act did not apply to tribunal proceedings.


Simon Brown LJ, May LJ, Dyson LJ


Times 10-Aug-2001, Gazette 13-Sep-2001


Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 19(2A), Housing Act 1996 83(1)


England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.159497