Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited v Cherry Lilian Norton
Decision date: 5 January 2012
Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 1 (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 landlords could charge administration/legal fees for consenting to underletting where leases required consent not to be unreasonably withheld and some leases expressly allowed recovery of reasonable costs. The Upper Tribunal held s.19(1)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 did not bar such charges unless the lease was granted in consideration of the tenant carrying out building works, and that s.19(1)(a) permits a landlord to require payment of a reasonable sum for expenses in granting consent. The matter was remitted for assessment of the reasonableness of the specific fees and, on further submissions, the President fixed the payable fee at £40 plus VAT in each appeal.
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 s.19(1)(b) applies only where the tenant’s obligation to erect, improve, add to or alter buildings forms whole or part of the consideration for the lease (i.e. building leases), so a lease merely relating to a newly erected building does not engage s.19(1)(b); and that s.19(1)(a) preserves a landlord’s ability to require payment of a reasonable sum for legal or other expenses connected with consent to underletting, including enforcement of an express covenant to pay reasonable costs.
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 (obiter) that the mere fact a lease concerns a newly erected building does not bring it within s.19(1)(b), and that paragraph 1(1) and 1(3) of Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act treat such consent charges as variable administration charges payable only to the extent they are reasonable.
Warning
Chunk is repetitive and contains duplicated passages; care needed to avoid double-counting. Notes are repetitive and contain duplicated material; they may not include the full factual or evidential detail of the judgment.