Eastpoint Block A RTM Company Limited v Akehinde Olufunlola Otubaga
Decision date: 29 November 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKUT 319 (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 an RTM company that has acquired the right to manage can apply to the tribunal under section 168(4) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 for a determination that a tenant breached lease covenants. The Upper Tribunal upheld the FTT's strike‑out: only a landlord may make an application under s.168(4), and an RTM company, having only management functions, does not become a landlord and therefore lacks jurisdiction to bring such an application. The RTM company must instead report breaches to the landlord under s.101 so the landlord may consider action.
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 court held that the wording of s.168(4) — "A landlord under a long lease may make an application..." — confines the right to apply to persons who are landlords; acquisition of the right to manage under Chapter 1 does not vest the reversion or other landlord status in an RTM company, but confers specified management functions only. Therefore an RTM company cannot bring a s.168(4) application.
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 observed that even if a s.168(4) determination were characterised as enforcement, that would not render it available to an RTM company because the tribunal procedure is reserved to landlords; RTM companies may instead seek remedies such as injunctions or declarations in the courts. It also noted that Schedule 7's selective treatment of RTM companies in earlier statutes suggests Parliament deliberately limited contexts in which an RTM company is to be treated as a landlord.