Fencott Ltd v Fencott Ltd v Lyttelton Court RTM Company Ltd
Decision date: 28 January 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 27 (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 single right-to-manage (RTM) company may acquire the statutory right to manage more than one self-contained building and related questions about competing RTM companies at Lyttelton Court. The Upper Tribunal held that the 2002 Act permits an RTM company to seek and acquire the right to manage multiple self-contained buildings, that prior incorporation of a properly constituted estate-wide RTM company can preclude later-formed block RTM companies under s73(4), and that successful landlords are entitled under s88(1) to recover reasonable costs caused by claim notices. The LVT decision was set aside to the extent it had rejected the estate company and upheld the block companies; quantification of costs and final determination of the estate company’s claim were left to the appropriate tribunal.
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 operative ratio is that the statutory scheme (ss72–73 and related provisions) does not limit an RTM company to a single self-contained building: qualifying conditions must be satisfied in relation to each building, so an RTM company may seek to manage multiple buildings. Section 73(4) prevents multiple RTM companies having prescribed objects that relate to the same premises or premises that contain or are contained in them, so prior incorporation of a properly constituted estate-wide RTM company can bar subsequently formed block RTM companies in respect of the same or contained premises. Section 88(1) creates a general entitlement for landlords to recover reasonable costs incurred as a consequence of RTM claim notices, with quantification for tribunals.
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 expressed obiter views that practical difficulties of estate-wide management (such as dual management of shared appurtenances or dilution of block tenant control) and comparisons with earlier redundant provisions do not outweigh the statutory wording permitting estate-wide RTM companies, and that remedies exist if companies are formed to frustrate others; these points were treated as practical observations rather than binding propositions.