CHARLES CAREY-MORGAN JONATHAN MONEY v LUDOVIC ADAM PAUL DE WALDEN CATHERINE CAMILLA DE WALDEN
Decision date: 14 March 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 134 (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 concerned whether leaseholders could recover by way of service charge the costs of employing a full‑time resident caretaker (FTRC) and a notional market rent for a basement caretaker's flat. The LVT had allowed only cleaner costs, but the Upper Tribunal held that on proper construction the lease entitled recovery of staff costs necessary to provide caretaking services and that, for reasonableness under s.19, measures taken to avoid forfeiture of the superior headlease could be recoverable. The UT therefore allowed recovery of the FTRC costs and notional basement rent for the years in question.
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
Where a lease permits recovery of caretaking costs at the landlord’s discretion, the reasonableness required by s.19(2) must be assessed in light of relevant contractual and factual circumstances, including steps reasonably required to avoid forfeiture of a superior headlease; accordingly employment of a FTRC to remedy a breach that risked forfeiture can be a recoverable and reasonable service‑charge cost.
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 concern about tension in treating a notional loss of market rent as a contractual “cost” while statutory definitions may not treat it as a “relevant cost,” and noted that ambiguous service‑charge provisions are to be construed in favour of paying tenants, but it did not finally resolve those wider interpretive tensions.