MILTONLAND LIMITED v MILTONLAND LIMITED v PLATINUM HOUSE (HARROW) RTM CO LTD
Decision date: 15 June 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 236 (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's s.80 claim notice was invalid because a referenced title plan edged in red included a small yard the landlord said could not be part of the right to manage. The tribunal held the notice did identify the premises (the self-contained building Platinum House and its appurtenant property) and that the bracketed reference to the plan was descriptive rather than a positive claim over every parcel within the red edging. The appeal was 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: high
A s.80 claim notice need only identify the self-contained building and need not particularise every item of appurtenant property; a descriptive reference to a title plan ("within the area edged in red") will be read in context and, where it is surplus to the operative identification of the premises, will not be construed as asserting a claim to manage every parcel shown. Section 81(1) cannot cure a notice that positively and materially includes land which cannot form part of the RTM, but where an apparent inaccuracy in a bracketed plan reference is merely descriptive the notice remains valid.
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 observed pragmatically that it would be unrealistic to require claimants to list all appurtenant rights or land, given the wide scope of "appurtenances" (including implied rights). It also noted that a clear inclusion of land that cannot be subject to RTM is not a trivial inaccuracy and would not be saved by s.81(1).