Wenghold Limited v George Stephen Egleton
Decision date: 4 September 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 420 (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 costs are "incurred" for the purposes of section 20B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 when services are supplied or only when the sums are ascertained (for example by invoice or payment). The Upper Tribunal held the LVT was wrong to treat the costs as incurred on supply and followed OM Property v Burr, concluding the managing agents did not incur the relevant electricity costs until invoices were received on 7 October 2009. The appeal was allowed and the full invoice sum paid 14 October 2009 was held recoverable in the 2009–10 service charge year.
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
For the purposes of s.20B, "incurred" requires an ascertained or ascertainable sum (typically evidenced by an invoice, demand or payment), not merely the provision of services or supplies; consequently costs become "incurred" when the amount is capable of being ascertained (here by delivery of the invoices on 7 October 2009).
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 that s.20B(2) serves to address allocation and dispute situations even if "incurred" requires ascertainability, and observed that prior remarks (e.g. by Morgan J) are not inconsistent with the Court of Appeal's reasoning where costs were wholly unanticipated; these points were treated as non-binding commentary.