The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v Clive Fleury and Others
Decision date: 12 May 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 136 (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 challenged a leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) decision that full roof-recovery works on two blocks were not "reasonably incurred" under s.19(1) LTA 1985 and that lower costs should be fixed. The Lands Tribunal held the LVT was entitled to prefer the lessees' expert evidence but made legal and evidential errors (notably reliance on historic patch costs without adequate evidence and insufficient engagement with the landlord's procurement evidence). The case was remitted to the LVT for re-hearing on whether recovery was a reasonable decision and whether the overall costs were reasonable; no costs order was made.
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
The governing question under s.19(1) is whether the decision to incur works was reasonable in all the circumstances; it is not enough that some reasonable surveyors might recommend the works if that recommendation lies at an extreme of the range. A tribunal assessing reasonableness must compare like with like using adequate evidence of likely future repair costs and must properly engage with the landlord's procurement evidence when deciding whether costs were reasonably incurred.
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 notes indicate obiter observations that greater weight attaches to expert opinion by an expert who has inspected the subject and that the placement of an expert's view within the spectrum of reasonable opinions matters. There were also comments suggesting building-regulations arguments about recovery requirements require careful analysis (here less than 25% of roof required recovery).