City and Country Properties Limited v BC Court RTM Company Limited
Decision date: 28 August 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 339 (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 3 March 2025 amendments to the 2002 Act (repealing ss 88–89 and replacing them with ss 87A/87B) extinguished a landlord’s accrued right to recover costs incurred before that date, and whether the First-tier Tribunal acted fairly in disallowing VAT and Land Registry fees without giving the landlord notice. The Upper Tribunal held the repeal did not extinguish accrued rights and that the FTT acted unfairly in denying the landlord an opportunity to address its concerns, restoring recovery of the full claimed costs and substituting an award of £2,107.20. Liability was ordered against the RTM company and its current and former members jointly and severally as the statutory regime then stood.
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
The decisive ratio is that, absent a clear contrary intention, repeal and replacement of statutory provisions do not deprive parties of rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities already accrued under the repealed enactment; the Interpretation Act s16(1) and the common‑law presumption against retrospectivity preserve such accrued rights. Additionally, a tribunal should not raise and determine new issues affecting recoverability (here VAT and Land Registry fees) without giving the affected party notice and an opportunity to respond.
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 judgment observations that related amendments in other statutes or explanatory materials do not displace the presumption preserving accrued rights, and that caution is needed before inferring retrospective effect from unrelated provisions (noting limited overlap between litigation‑cost recovery and service‑charge restrictions), appear as non‑binding commentary.