ELIM COURT RTM CO LTD ASSETHOLD LIMITED SINCLAIR GARDENS INVESTMENTS (KENSINGTON) LIMITED v AVON FREEHOLDS LTD 369 UPLAND ROAD RTM COMPANY LTD & CANADIAN AVENUE RTM COMPANY LTD FARNBOROUGH ROAD (CALLOWAY HOUSE) RTM COMPANY LIMITED (2) FARNBOROUGH ROAD (BRAND HOUSE) RTM COMPANY LIMITED
Decision date: 10 September 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 397 (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 bundle concerns five RTM claims and three recurring questions: whether the three inspection days in a s78(5)(b) invitation must include a Saturday or Sunday, whether claim notices signed by an individual director of a company secretary comply with Companies Act s44 and the prescribed-form requirement, and whether a claim notice must be served on an intermediate landlord under s79(6). The Upper Tribunal held that s78(5)(b) requires at least one weekend day and failure to specify one is non‑compliant and fatal unless substantial compliance (meeting Parliament’s objective) is shown; that the claim notices signed by Mr Joyner as an individual director validly constituted signatures on behalf of the RTM companies; and that failure to serve an intermediate landlord under s79(6) is fatal. As a result, two RTM companies (369 Upland Road and Canadian Avenue) succeeded while the Elim Court and Sinclair Gardens claims failed.
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 binding conclusions are (1) the ordinary statutory meaning of s78(5)(b) requires the three inspection days to include at least one Saturday or Sunday, and non‑specification of a weekend day renders the invitation notice invalid unless substantial compliance can be shown to achieve the statutory objective; (2) a prescribed‑form claim notice may be validly signed by a person who in fact has authority for the RTM company, so a director’s personal signature accompanied by a description of his authority can satisfy the signature/form requirements; and (3) service of the claim notice on every landlord of any part of the premises, including an intermediate landlord under s79(6)(a), is integral to the statutory scheme and failure to effect such service is fatal to the 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 decision discusses (obiter) the application of substantial‑compliance/prejudice principles (drawing on Lord Woolf’s framework) and allocates the burden to the RTM company to prove absence of relevant prejudice where non‑compliance is asserted to be cured. The Tribunal also made practical observations on the importance of weekend inspection availability for qualifying tenants who work.