Anna Kyriacou v Vanessa Linden
Decision date: 10 November 2021
Neutral citation: [2021] UKUT 288 (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 the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) should have determined alleged breaches of lease covenants and the correctness of a costs order. The Upper Tribunal held the FTT was wrong to refuse determination on insurance breaches and substituted findings that the landlord breached the insurance covenant in specified periods (loss-of-rent cover missing 1 Nov–2 Dec 2019; policy not in joint names 2 Dec 2019–19 Feb 2020). The Upper Tribunal also set aside the FTT's costs order and remade it, ordering the claimant to pay a reduced contribution of £10,000.
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
The tribunal's function is to decide whether a breach of covenant has occurred; subsequent remediation or waiver does not remove the duty to determine the prior question. A leaseholder's failure to procure the insurance cover required by the lease — including securing the policy in the specified joint names and obtaining stipulated loss-of-rent cover — can constitute a breach even where obtaining a true joint-names policy may be practically difficult.
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 observed that insurers often note a landlord's interest rather than issue true joint-names policies, which may explain practical difficulty but does not excuse non-compliance. It also commented that where a lease grants a right contingent on the other party making a nomination (eg for dustbins), refusal to nominate can operate as a waiver; and that tribunals may consider repetitive or uncompromising conduct when assessing reasonableness for costs, subject to proper analysis.