Ground Rents (Regisport) Ltd v (1) MR HAMISH DOWLEN (2) MR ANDREW GREENE (3) MR WILLIAM ROSE
Decision date: 22 April 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 144 (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 historic Thames Water bills first presented to the freeholder in 2010 could be recovered from leaseholders as service charges and whether s.20B(1) Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 barred recovery of amounts incurred more than 18 months before the landlord's demand. The Upper Tribunal held for s.20B purposes that costs are "incurred" when the landlord for the time being becomes liable (normally when a bill is presented to that landlord), so the appellant did not incur liability until it received the invoices in 2010, and allowed the appeal on that point. The Tribunal also held that the lease’s certification clause did not prevent the landlord from including expenditure actually incurred in a later year in a later certificate. Quantification of sums payable was remitted to the First-tier Tribunal.
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
For the purposes of s.20B(1) LTA 1985, relevant costs are "incurred" when the landlord for the time being becomes liable to pay them, which will normally be when the bill is presented to that landlord; therefore invoices addressed to a former landlord do not count as incurred costs for the current landlord. A landlord’s conclusive certificate in an earlier service charge year does not necessarily preclude inclusion in a later year’s certificate of expenditure actually incurred in that later year.
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 Tribunal observed (obiter) that the policy behind s.20B is to protect leaseholders from unexpected historic bills irrespective of fault for delayed billing, and noted that s.27A(6) might limit the binding effect of a landlord's certificate as against tenants, although it did not decide that point.