Jeanna Gater v Wellington Real Estates Ltd
Decision date: 18 December 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] UKUT 561 (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 leaseholders challenging Wellington's apportionment of service charges under a head "White Lease" and the First‑tier Tribunal's approach. The UT held that provisions purporting to vest determination of the fair proportion in the landlord or its surveyor are void to the extent that they oust the tribunal under s.27A(6) and that the First‑tier Tribunal had asked the wrong question by confining itself to the reasonableness of Wellington's method. The UT allowed the appeal, set aside the FTT decision and remitted the matter for re‑determination on the correct legal basis that the tribunal must determine the fair apportionment if parties cannot agree.
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
Section 27A(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 renders void lease provisions that purport to fix the manner or evidence by which questions (including apportionment of service charges) are to be determined so as to exclude tribunal determination; where a lease requires a "due and fair proportion" but purports to vest that determination in the landlord or its surveyor, the tribunal retains power to determine the fair apportionment if parties cannot agree.
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 comments that it is desirable practice for an intermediate landlord to be named or joined in s.27A proceedings even if it does not participate, and that consolidated accounting arrangements between group companies may be acceptable if not shown to disadvantage tenants but can blur contractual roles; these points were not essential to the disposition.