Julie Stanton & Ors v Fury Developments Limited
Decision date: 23 September 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 294 (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
Occupiers of a protected mobile home site appealed FTT decisions that allowed the site owner to recover administration charges for gas and electricity collected via agent POW Utilities. The Upper Tribunal held that clauses requiring occupiers to pay "charges in respect of" utilities, and the statutory implied term, permit reimbursement only of the actual supplier charges, not the site owner’s or its agent’s administration costs. POW was not a utility supplier and its administration fees could not be recovered from occupiers; the FTT decisions were set aside and appellants must be reimbursed any such payments. All four appeals succeeded.
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 written statement clause or the statutory implied term obliges an occupier to pay "charges in respect of" utilities, that language refers to charges levied by the third‑party utility supplier; it does not allow the site owner to pass on its or its agent’s meter‑reading or administration costs to occupiers. Absent an express contractual service charge, administration costs of supplying utilities are subsumed within the regulated pitch fee and cannot be separately recovered from occupiers.
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 that Ofgem guidance does not become an implied contractual term merely because a historic supplier is referenced in the written statement, and that park rules mirroring clause 3(b) cannot impose obligations broader than the written statements or statutory implied terms.