Almacantar Centre Point Nominee No 1 Limited & Anor v Various Leaseholders of Centre Point House
Decision date: 17 December 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKUT 434 (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 to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) arose from an FTT decision about whether paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 applied to proposed remediation at Centre Point House and whether the façade was an "unsafe cladding system." The Tribunal adjourned the substantive hearing, ruled that a newly framed "relevant defect" argument in the appellants' skeleton was not properly pleaded and can only be pursued if the appellants obtain permission to amend their grounds, and disallowed reliance on post‑FTT government/professional guidance documents. The appellants must apply for permission to amend and agreed to indemnity payment of the respondents' wasted costs; the substantive appeal is relisted pending any amendment application.
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 an appellant seeks to run a materially new point of law at appeal that was not adequately foreshadowed in the pleaded grounds, the Tribunal will treat it as a new issue requiring permission to amend the grounds so the respondents have an opportunity to address it; documents or policy materials created after the tribunal decision that are not authoritative or relevant to statutory construction should not be admitted or relied upon.
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 (by way of guidance) that inclusion of a new point in a skeleton argument does not automatically amount to ambush and that, in novel or complex cases with potentially far‑reaching consequences, tribunals may in appropriate circumstances permit regulated opportunities to add issues rather than excluding them summarily; such permission may be conditional on indemnity costs for any resulting adjournment.
Warning
- none