Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Accordway Limited Stella Kateb
Decision date: 28 October 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 486 (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 a "competent landlord" under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 can agree terms with a tenant that bind an intermediate landlord who had served a Schedule 11 paragraph 7(1) notice to be separately represented. The Upper Tribunal held that service of para 7(1) does not prevent the competent landlord, under s40(2) and Sch 11 para 6, from reaching an agreement with the tenant that binds intermediate landlords, and that the grant of the lease on 15 August 2013 completed the s42 process and deprived the First-tier Tribunal of jurisdiction. The appellant’s Human Rights arguments were rejected and the appeal was allowed.
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
Sch 11 para 6 read with s40(2) permits a competent landlord to bind other landlords by agreement with the tenant; para 7(1) only gives a limited right to be separately represented in specified proceedings and does not confer a veto over negotiations. Once the competent landlord completed the statutory acquisition process by granting the lease, the First-tier Tribunal lost jurisdiction to determine matters under the s42 notice.
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 judgment includes observations that, as a practical matter, competent landlords are expected to engage intermediate landlords to enable them to discharge any statutory duty of care and that intermediate landlords have alternative remedies (for example applying to the county court under para 6(1) for directions). The decision also notes by analogy the wider provisions in Schedule 1 for collective enfranchisement as supporting a narrower construction of Sch 11 para 7(1).