Ian Dunkley & Anor v Island Park (Medway) Limited
Decision date: 24 November 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 393 (LC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerns whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had jurisdiction under section 4 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 to remedy charges and access controls imposed by Residential Marine Ltd (RML) over land outside the protected mobile‑home site, which the appellants say are enforced by the site owner, Island Park (Medway) Ltd. The FTT held it lacked jurisdiction to order cessation of matters imposed by RML on land outside the protected site, but granted permission to appeal because of the unusual factual matrix (including common directorship) and the question whether the respondent was effectively enforcing RML’s measures. The FTT expressed scepticism about RML’s justifications for the charges and access restrictions but treated that as outside its remit in the 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: low
No clear binding ratio can safely be identified from the notes. The FTT’s decision indicates that, as a general proposition, the tribunal did not consider itself able under the 1983 Act to order a separate third party (not the site owner and not a party to the agreement) to cease imposing charges or controls over land outside the protected site; whether matters are within its jurisdiction may depend on how closely third‑party actions are interwoven with site management and whether the site owner is effectively enforcing them.
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 made non‑binding observations that it would be improper for a former site owner to seek to continue imposing charges it could not impose while the site owner, particularly if enforced by restricting access, and expressed general scepticism about unilateral, arbitrary or onerous requirements (eg excessive insurance or contractor conditions). These comments were illustrative and not applied to grant relief.