Cases - Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Avon Estates (London) Ltd
Record details
- Name
- Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Avon Estates (London) Ltd
- Date
- [2016]
- Citation
- UKUT 317 (LC)
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Service charges – Costs – Leases – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 section 27A, section 20C
- Summary
-
The respondent was the lessee of a flat. The appellant was the freeholder. The issue on appeal was whether, on a true construction of the lease, the appellant landlord was able to recover from the leaseholders as part of the service charge the legal costs it had incurred in previous proceedings before the tribunals under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
It was argued on behalf of the relevant landlord that the relevant clause did not include any reference to management of the estate and in the absence of any such provision the subclause should be construed as being wide enough to include the cost of instructing solicitors and counsel to conduct proceedings.
Whether a landlord was entitled to recover legal costs incurred in relation to tribunal proceedings against its tenants depended upon the true construction of the service charge clause contained in the lease. Service charge provisions should be construed as any other written contractual provision; namely in light of its context, which in the case of a service charge involved consideration of the lease as a whole, taking into account the circumstances existing at the time of the grant.
The relevant clause in the lease allowed employment of (inter alios) solicitors ‘properly required to be employed in connection with or for the purpose of or in relation to the estate and the Block or any part thereof'. Although it was unclear what was meant by ‘the purpose of the estate’, by application of common sense, and with due reference to the intended relationship between the parties to the lease, lead to the conclusion that the only possible purpose being referred to was the management of the estate. The mere reference to ‘solicitors’ in the relevant clause did not give the landlord carte blanche to instruct solicitors for any purpose. The limit of their employment was that they must be employed for the purposes of the management of the estate. When they were employed for other purposes, the sums expended could not be recovered through the service charge.
Appeal dismissed.