Crosspite Limited v Mahesh Sachdev Seema Sachdev and Kamlesh Sachdev
Decision date: 25 September 2012
Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 321 (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 rent-to-rent landlord could charge £165 for retrospectively consenting to an unauthorised underletting and whether the lease permitted such a charge. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT had erred in two respects: it lacked jurisdiction to decide entitlement where the tenant had effectively agreed to pay, and the lease did permit charging reasonable legal/other expenses as a condition of consent; on the evidence the landlord had justified the £165 charge and the appeal was allowed.
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
Where a tenant has effectively admitted or agreed entitlement to a landlord's claim under Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act (including informal admissions), an LVT should not determine that entitlement under paragraph 5(4); such issues fall outside its jurisdiction in those circumstances. A covenant that consent to an underletting "shall not be unreasonably withheld" can lawfully include the imposition of reasonable terms, including payment of reasonable legal or other expenses, as conditions of granting consent; the party asserting reasonableness bears the evidential burden.
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 that the 1988 Act governs timing and reasons for refusing consent but does not preclude landlords from imposing reasonable conditional charges when granting consent. It also suggested LVTs should be cautious about raising and deciding novel issues of their own motion without giving parties an opportunity to comment.