Global 100 Limited v Sasha Jam Ross & Ors
Decision date: 12 August 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 264 (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 concerns rent repayment orders made against Global 100 arising from a property‑guardian scheme at the Old Moselle School. The FTT found the council’s written agreement with GGM was a licence (not a lease), that the council did not receive payments, and that the statutory exception in Schedule 14/s.263(3)(b) did not apply because the arrangement relied on was not one "by virtue of which" GGM received payments; RROs were therefore made against Global 100. Permission to appeal was granted on the narrower legal issue whether "arrangement" should be read more widely than the written licence.
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: medium
The FTT treated the statutory exception in paragraph 2, Schedule 14 and s.263(3)(b) as requiring an arrangement that is one by virtue of which the non‑owner actually receives the rents or payments relied on; a broader factual context or mere connection to a written licence will not suffice unless it shows the payments are received by virtue of that arrangement.
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 notes record commentary that "arrangement" might, arguendo, encompass multiple written or unwritten terms, practices or understandings and that a narrow focus on a single written document could undermine an anti‑avoidance purpose; this was treated as arguable rather than determinative. Also noted were recurrent statutory‑interpretation issues in prior guardian cases, supporting appellate review.