Gray’s Inn Investments Limited v Sally Claire Jolleys

Decision date: 3 January 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 2 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 an assignee who takes the benefit of a tenant's notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 can be treated as "the tenant by whom the notice is given" and so be liable for the landlord's reasonable costs. The Upper Tribunal allowed the landlord's appeal, holding that section 43(1) and (2) import assigns into references to "the tenant" so the assignee (Ms Jolleys) can be liable for costs; quantum was remitted to the FTT for assessment.

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 43(1) and (2) operate to carry rights and liabilities arising from a tenant's notice onto the tenant's assigns, such that statutory references to "the tenant" in the Chapter include assignees where the context permits; the saving/exception clause is an exception to liability (for certain costs on voluntary sale) rather than requiring an express stipulation in the transfer to make an assignee liable.

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 observes some uncertainty about exactly which costs the saving/exception covers and cites commentary suggesting it relates to unusual costs that a purchaser could not reasonably be required to pay; it also notes that a contractual indemnity in the deed of assignment was irrelevant to the statutory liability between assignee and landlord.