Earl Cadogan v Cadogan Square Properties Ltd
Decision date: 16 February 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKUT 68 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerned the Upper Tribunal's review of an LVT decision fixing the purchase price for collective enfranchisement of 23 Cadogan Square. The Tribunal corrected obvious arithmetical and marriage‑value calculation errors in the LVT’s figure and reduced the price to £2,021,700, dismissed the other grounds of appeal, and refused to include a post‑completion contractual claw‑back or provisional pricing mechanism. It also set out that it will consider any application for permission to appeal on the claw‑back point but indicated such permission is unlikely.
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 Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) may correct obvious clerical or arithmetical mistakes in an LVT’s calculation of the Schedule 6 price where the corrections are consistent with the LVT’s reasoning, without a prior formal application to the LVT; and the statutory scheme governing enfranchisement (including Schedule 5 and s.24(8)) does not permit the tribunal to order transfer terms that leave the Schedule 6 price provisionally fixed or subject to later contractual adjustment by a post‑completion claw‑back.
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 contains practical observations that allowing provisional pricing with contractual claw‑backs could produce unfairness, enforcement difficulties and encourage contingent clauses that undermine finality of acquisition. It also notes a procedural approach of treating an application for permission to appeal as notionally received on the first permissible day to avoid delay.