Lina Mihovilovic and Stojanea Mihovilovic v Leicester City Council
Decision date: 28 January 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKUT 22 (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
The tenants appealed parts of an LVT decision about service charges for 2005/06–2006/07, challenging the landlord's inclusion of amounts said to represent "self‑insurance" and procedural findings about disaggregation of door/window works and the relevant date for consultation. The UT held the council could not recover costs of bearing its own insurance risk from these tenants under the leases, and found the LVT had committed procedural error in deciding disaggregation and the contract/date issues without warning the parties. The appeal was allowed, the matter remitted to the LVT for reconsideration of disaggregation/dispensation depending on the correct contract/date, and the council was ordered not to include its Tribunal costs in service charges.
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 tribunal ratio is that, on the facts and the lease wording considered, a landlord who elects to bear rebuilding/reinstatement risks cannot recover from tenants an amount representing the landlord's own self‑insurance costs unless the lease expressly permits such recovery (paragraph 16A(3) was permissive and not incorporated here). Procedurally, an adjudicator must give parties notice and an opportunity to address an issue if it intends to reach a conclusion contrary to the parties' apparent common approach.
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 suggests (obiter) that the permissive wording of paragraph 16A(3), contrasted with mandatory implied covenants elsewhere in Schedule 6, indicates legislative intent that liability for self‑insurance depends on express lease provision; and that detailed itemisation or pricing in notices does not necessarily determine whether separate works constitute one or multiple qualifying works.