Dr Lellis Francis Braganza v The Riverside Group Limited
Decision date: 2 October 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKUT 243 (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 section 27A(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 effectively voided a lease clause making the landlord’s surveyor determinative of annual service‑charge apportionments, and whether the surveyor’s apportionment in this case was rational. The Upper Tribunal held that s.27A(6) did not deprive the surveyor of the contractual role here, and on a rationality review the surveyor’s apportionment was not irrational. The FTT’s decision that the service charges were payable in full was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
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 vests a contractual discretion in a landlord or surveyor to vary a specified sum, s.27A(6) does not necessarily render that mechanism void; a tribunal’s review of such a contractual apportionment is limited to a rationality test (good faith, not arbitrary or capricious, and considering relevant matters). If the apportionment satisfies that rationality standard and is made in accordance with the lease as executed, it will be binding.
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 remarked that the executed form of the lease governs parties’ rights even where it departs from template assumptions, and that annual amendment of a fixed “Specified Proportion” can in practice operate as the service charge. It also observed that apportionments reflecting practical differences in benefit (for example, flats’ greater use of common parts) are commonly reasonable methods.