Renee Wasserman v Loyalart Flat Management Company Limited
Decision date: 28 August 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 334 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerned whether a long‑standing practice of parking on a forecourt had either permanently released a covenant to park in a garage, given rise to a legal easement, or been validly revoked by notice so that enforcement could resume. The UT rejected the permanent‑release and easement arguments but found that the First‑tier Tribunal’s conclusion that reasonable notice had been given was unsustainable on the evidence. The UT therefore set aside the FTT’s finding of breach after 2021 and substituted a finding that Mrs Wasserman was not in breach up to the date of the UT decision.
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
Where long acquiescence is relied on to show irrevocable release of a covenant, it will only succeed if the change of position caused by non‑enforcement is profound or gives rise to significant, irreversible detriment; mere tolerated, cost‑free use (for example parking) is unlikely to found permanent release. Waiver or promissory‑estoppel suspending enforcement rights is revocable by reasonable notice, and commencing proceedings is not, without supporting evidence of prior notice, necessarily adequate proof that reasonable notice was given.
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 UT observed that authorities which found irrevocable waiver typically involved substantial, often expensive, changes in position (such as large developments or costly works) and contrasted those with tolerated parking. The tribunal also expressed a policy preference that disputing leaseholders consider mediation for persistent communal disputes.