Manaquel Company Limited v London Borough of Lambeth
Decision date: 25 March 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 97 (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
Manaquel Company Ltd appealed the First-tier Tribunal’s refusal to award costs after it successfully quashed an improvement notice served by London Borough of Lambeth. The Upper Tribunal found legal errors in the FTT’s reasoning—notably giving impermissible weight to events after the notice and failing to consider whether there were reasonable explanations for Lambeth’s conduct—but declined to remake the costs decision for lack of adequate material and remitted evidence. The appeal was dismissed and the FTT’s refusal to order costs was left undisturbed.
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 judgment indicates that on appeals against improvement notices under Schedule 1 para 15(2) the correct inquiry is whether the authority’s decision was wrong when made, with post-decision events only relevant insofar as they illuminate that point; and that, when assessing unreasonable conduct under rule 13(1)(b), tribunals must apply an objective standard and expressly consider whether a reasonable explanation exists for the conduct complained of.
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 suggested (obiter) that lack of specificity in an improvement notice may justify removal of particular requirements (for example, a window-replacement requirement) without necessarily invalidating other remedial steps, that poor record-keeping by a local authority (such as failure to preserve inspection records or hazard calculations) can support a finding of unreasonable conduct, and that parties should generally use statutory variation procedures rather than expecting tribunals to reformulate notices.