Mohammed Naeem & Anor v Abacona Investments Limited
Decision date: 20 April 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 154 (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 leaseholders challenging £124,759.94 of 2019 service charges for external redecoration at Endwood Court, arguing cheaper access methods (cradles or a scissor lift) could have been used. The FTT found no evidence those methods were safe or lawful in 2019 and held the costs were reasonably incurred; the Upper Tribunal found the appeal bundle contained sufficient material (including a detailed 2019 specification) to show cradles or a scissor lift were likely impracticable and so remittal was unnecessary. The Deputy President had noted tenants need only raise a case and that the landlord may carry the evidential burden to justify more expensive measures.
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: medium
Where tenants raise a plausible, specific alternative method of carrying out works, that is sufficient to put the reasonableness of higher-cost measures in issue; the landlord must then show why the higher-cost option was nevertheless reasonable. The Upper Tribunal held that, on the material before the FTT, absence of further evidence from the landlord did not require remittal because the existing specification and documents were sufficient to demonstrate practicable impossibility of the cheaper methods.
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 a tribunal reviewing its own decision should apply the evidential/burden analysis appropriate to service-charge challenges and consider whether tenants’ points, once accepted as raising a case, convert into matters the landlord must answer; and that remittal is not always required where an appellate tribunal can determine the issue on the existing FTT material.