London Borough of Havering v George Inglis MacDonald
Decision date: 17 May 2012
Neutral citation: [2012] UKUT 154 (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 the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) gave adequate written reasons for finding that communal TV/radio service charges were unreasonable and capping the charge at £26 per annum. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT’s written reasons were inadequate, that its later remarks refusing permission to appeal did not cure the defect, and allowed the appeal, remitting the matter to a differently constituted LVT for rehearing.
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 tribunal (including an LVT) must provide proper, intelligible written reasons addressing the substantial points so parties can understand how conclusions were reached. While a tribunal may amplify reasons when refusing permission to appeal, any such amplification must reflect matters fully aired at the original hearing and cannot rest on unexplained tribunal expertise or novel factual findings.
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 LVT, as an expert tribunal, may use its knowledge to test or evaluate evidence but must not decide issues or rely on facts or expertise that parties had no opportunity to address. The tribunal’s power to correct slips or make limited amendments (regulation 18(7)) cannot be used to introduce substantial fresh reasoning in place of reasons that ought to have been given at the hearing.