Daejan Investments Limited v (1) Jack Benson (2) David Lapes (3) Paul Wallder (4) Aldenspring Limited (5) Alastair Gray
Decision date: 27 November 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKUT 233 (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
Daejan sought retrospective dispensation from statutory Stage 2 consultation requirements before recovering major works costs at Queens Mansions; the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal found material failures to provide proper summaries, make priced estimates available in time, and to allow effective consultation, and refused dispensation. The Lands Tribunal upheld that refusal, concluding that the breach was serious and that prejudice to lessees was realistically possible given the closeness of tenders, so dispensation should not be granted and the lessees' recoverable liability was limited by the statutory consequence.
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
Where a landlord has breached statutory consultation requirements, the primary question for dispensing with those requirements is whether tenants suffered (or realistically could have suffered) significant prejudice from the breach; if significant prejudice is established or realistically possible, a tribunal should not grant retrospective dispensation. The financial hardship to the landlord from refusal is not a proper factor to outweigh the statutory scheme when deciding dispensation.
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 suggested that minor or purely technical breaches producing no real prejudice may attract retrospective dispensation, and that tribunals should critically assess claims of prejudice using practical common sense; also that section 19 reasonableness cannot be used to avoid the statutory all-or-nothing consequences. These comments are indicative guidance rather than binding ratio.