Jeremy Ryton Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax v Lawn Court Freehold Limited
Decision date: 24 March 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 81 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned recovery of the freeholder's legal and valuation costs under s.33 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in relation to two collective enfranchisement initial notices and a claim for costs under paragraph 10, Schedule 12 of the 2002 Act. The Tribunal re-examined which items were "in pursuance of the notice" and "incidental" to s.33(1) and found many service‑charge related costs were not recoverable; it increased the award for the second notice to £4,375 (exclusive of VAT), upheld the first‑notice award, and made a limited £500 Schedule 12 award for unreasonable conduct. The appeal was allowed in part and the appellant was awarded a total of £6,568 (exclusive of VAT).
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Costs for service‑charge matters are recoverable under s.33 only if they were incurred "in pursuance of the" s.13 (initial) notice and are incidental to the matters listed in s.33(1)(a)–(e); costs not meeting that test must be excluded. Section 33(2) requires assessment of reasonableness by reference to what the reversioner would reasonably have spent if personally liable, imposing a proportionality constraint on recoverable costs.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal observed (non‑bindingly) that enfranchisement has some analogy with compulsory purchase but that the analogy is limited by the specific statutory scope of s.33; and that where supporting documentation is incomplete, tribunals may disallow or reduce claimed items for lack of adequate particulars.