Avon Ground Rents Limited v Li Jing & Ors

Decision date: 26 October 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 412 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 the First-tier Tribunal erred in fixing leaseholders' liability for a waking-watch service by reference to an estimated cost rather than a proportion of the actual cost. The UT found the FTT's only error was delay in installing an alarm (excess duration), not the monthly rate, and set aside the FTT's £70,000 figure. The UT substituted a charge equal to seven months of the actual waking-watch cost, £118,934.66, payable by the leaseholders in their proportions. Procedural points on costs and an order preventing recovery of the landlord's appeal costs were left for further representations.

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 a tribunal finds an element of a service charge unreasonable solely because of excessive duration, the appropriate remedy is to allow a proportionate share of the actual cost corresponding to the reasonable duration; and if actual costs are in evidence and not challenged, a tribunal should explain any use of estimated costs rather than applying the actual costs.

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 a tribunal should not rest on an unexplained conclusion that actual costs are unreasonable where the contested issue was limited to duration and there is no evidential challenge to the rate; and that precision in expressing proportions (months versus a percentage of the year) must be consistent with the reasoning.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML