JOHN PETER SIMON v JOHN PETER SIMON v ST MILDREDS COURT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION LTD
Decision date: 16 September 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 508 (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 the statutory 75% consenting majority under s.37(5)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 must exist at the time an application to vary multiple flat leases is issued, and whether prior ballots or consent to a principle or defective draft suffice. The Upper Tribunal held the 75% threshold is a mandatory precondition which must be met when the application is issued, and that consent must relate to the specific application/wording; consents given later or only to a principle or different draft do not satisfy s.37(5)(b). The appeal was allowed on that timing point and the tribunal ordered that certain applicant costs be disallowed under s.20C.
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 binding ratio is that where s.37(5)(b) requires a specified numeric consent, that threshold is a jurisdictional precondition which must be satisfied at the time the application is made (issued), and the consents relied upon must relate to the application as issued (or its proposed wording), not merely to an earlier ballot, agreement in principle, or a different/defective draft.
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 and policy reasons for requiring pre-issuance, informed consent—avoiding wasted cost, ensuring informed consideration, and protecting lessees from surprise—and observed that while statute does not prescribe a particular form of consent, parties should be provided with the proposed variation and clear explanatory material before being asked to consent.