FAIRHOLD (YORKSHIRE) LIMITED v TRINTIY WHARF (SE16) RTM CO LIMITED
Decision date: 7 October 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 502 (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 a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) deciding an RTM application was limited to grounds pleaded in the landlord’s counter-notice and whether the tribunal had properly satisfied itself that required notices of invitation to participate had been validly given in the prescribed form. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT was wrong to confine its jurisdiction to the counter-notice, and that it must ensure statutory procedural requirements (including production and compliance of notices of invitation under s.78 and the 2010 Regulations) have been met before upholding an RTM claim. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for redetermination.
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
On an application under s.84(3) the tribunal’s remit is to determine whether the RTM company was entitled on the relevant date to acquire the right to manage and is not statutorily confined to the issues pleaded in the landlord’s counter-notice; the tribunal must ensure compliance with statutory procedural requirements for RTM, including that notices of invitation to participate required by s.78 and the 2010 Regulations were validly given and, where necessary, produced and inspected before upholding an RTM claim.
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 may, provided fairness is preserved, investigate procedural integrity of the RTM process on its own initiative. Also, s.78(7) (which prevents inaccuracy from invalidating a notice) does not excuse omission of required particulars; it only covers inaccuracies in particulars supplied.