Cases - Plantation Wharf Management Limited v Blain Alden Fairman and others
Record details
- Name
- Plantation Wharf Management Limited v Blain Alden Fairman and others
- Date
- [2019]
- Citation
- UKUT 236 (LC)
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Service charges – s. 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 – parties to proceedings – representatives
- Summary
-
Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the 1985 Act) allows a tenant to apply to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) for an order preventing their landlord from recovering all or part their costs incurred in proceedings through the service charge. An order made by the FTT protects any person specified in the tenant’s application.
In the present case, the respondent long lessee applied to the FTT for an order under s20C of the 1985 Act. In his application, the respondent stated that it was for the benefit of ‘all leaseholders at Plantation Wharf York Road London SW11 3TN’. It transpired that the respondent had not obtained the authority of all the residents of the block to be specified in his application.
The FTT allowed the respondent’s application, but failed to specify if the order under s.20C of the 1985 Act was made for the benefit of all of the lessee or just the lessees who were party to the proceedings. The appellant management company appealed.
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) requested that the FTT clarify for whose benefit the order under s.20C had been made. The FTT replied by stating that observed that ‘…the application was made on behalf of all lessees and all lessees have the benefit of the Tribunal’s order’.
The UT upheld the appellant’s appeal. Relying on Re Scmlla (Freehold) Ltd [2014] UKUT 58 (LC), the UT urged caution when exercising jurisdiction under s.20C of the 1985 Act because it interfered ‘with the parties’ contractual rights and obligations’.
The jurisdiction of the FTT was based on the application itself. The identity of the applicant was therefore crucial to considering the power of the FTT to make orders under s.20C of the 1985 Act. Such an order could only bind the applicant or those persons specified in the application. For an individual to be ‘specified’ that person must have provided the applicant their express authority.