Reshma Tachkani v Thornfield Hawley Management Company Limited
Decision date: 5 August 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 295 (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 whether the landlord/management company (THMC) was authorised by two 1986 leases to maintain a reserve fund and to demand contributions from Ms Tachkani for 2018–2025. The First-tier Tribunal had upheld the charges by inferring authority from a repairing covenant, past conduct and estoppel; the Upper Tribunal held the leases did not authorise a reserve fund, that deed leases cannot be varied by informal consensus or conduct, and set aside the FTT’s decision, ruling Ms Tachkani not liable for the 2018–2025 demands.
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: high
The leases did not grant THMC power to establish or collect a reserve fund; a broad repairing obligation in the lease does not, without express lease provision, imply authority to create such a fund. Further, a lease executed as a deed cannot be varied by informal consensus or by conduct over time; variation requires a deed or a court/tribunal order.
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 noted that, in other circumstances, repeated payments without objection may sometimes support an inference of agreement to pay if the payer knew what they were paying and did not protest, and that earlier tolerance or acquiescence (e.g. in 2015) does not automatically bind a leaseholder in later years absent evidence of continued agreement.