Ninety Broomfield Room RTM Company v Triplerose Ltd
Decision date: 28 November 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 606 (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 case decided whether a single Right to Manage (RTM) company can acquire RTM for more than one self-contained building and how statutory eligibility and notice requirements operate for multi-block estates. The Upper Tribunal held that one RTM company may acquire RTM over multiple self-contained premises, but the qualifying-majority and membership tests in ss.72 and 79 must be applied separately to each set of premises; a single claim notice can suffice if it clearly establishes eligibility for each. The Tribunal applied that approach to four consolidated matters, allowing two appeals, remitting one for reconsideration, and dismissing one.
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
Section 72 does not limit an RTM to a single set of premises; an RTM company can seek RTM over multiple self-contained buildings. However, the statutory eligibility thresholds (the two-thirds qualifying tenants test and the RTM membership minimums) must be calculated in respect of each building separately. A claim notice need not be invalidated for minor inaccuracies under s.81 and may cover multiple premises so long as, under s.80, it is sufficiently clear to demonstrate eligibility for each premises.
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 practical problems that may follow multi-block RTMs—such as dilution of tenant voting power, management conflicts, and duplicated responsibilities over shared appurtenances—but held these practicalities do not justify reading a numerical or single-building limit into the statute. The decision also observed that widespread multi-block RTMs are unlikely in practice due to membership and procedural constraints.