Agincourt Investments Limited v Natasha Joy Williams & Ors
Decision date: 3 August 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 292 (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
Landlord Agincourt sought recovery of major works service charges; the FTT disallowed or reduced many items after preferring the leaseholders’ expert and refusing unverified photographs. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the landlord’s appeal on the photographs ground, holding the FTT was entitled to refuse unverified photographs and to decline late evidence, but set aside the FTT’s classification of items 6.10–6.13 and directed resolution of outstanding numbering/payment queries. No other substantive determinations were changed.
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
A bundle of photographs appended to a Scott Schedule does not constitute admissible evidence unless accompanied by verification (for example a witness statement establishing provenance and relevance), and a tribunal may properly refuse to admit new evidence offered mid-hearing where admitting it would be unfair to the other party.
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 observes that tribunals, though less formal than courts, still require evidence to be presented in a form that permits fair testing and that submitting unverified materials is a procedural risk; it also comments that the outcome might have differed had a timely pre-hearing application been made to file a late witness statement verifying photographs, but does not decide that hypothetical.