Dr Rosh Jamal v London Borough of Enfield
Decision date: 5 March 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 104 (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 a lease clause requiring the landlord to notify tenants of estimated management/service charges before the start of the financial year made time of the essence and whether a late notice could nevertheless make estimated charges payable in advance. The Upper Tribunal held that time was of the essence for that notice and that the landlord’s late notice (after 1 April but before 1 July) did not make estimated charges immediately payable; the tenant remained liable only for actual charges after year end.
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 lease prescribes that notice of estimated service/management charges must be given before the commencement of the financial year and requires payment "at the times and in the manner specifically mentioned therein," the timing provision can be and was construed as making time of the essence; operational difficulties on the landlord’s part (such as IT problems) do not excuse or alter that strict timing requirement. As a result, a notice served after the specified date did not trigger advance payment obligations under the lease.
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 decision notes (following authority in Kensquare v Boakye) that each lease must be construed on its own terms and that leases which intend flexibility about timing will normally express that intention (for example by stating "time shall not be of the essence"); absent such express wording, businesslike or pragmatic considerations do not justify departing from clear timing provisions.