KEENEY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v (1) DR ZOE M BROOKE (2) MR DAVID LEE (3) MS CLARE BANNER AND MR DAVID BANNER (4) MRS KATHERINE DOS SANTOS FERNANDES AND MRS ELIZABETH CLEMENTS (5) MR GARETH MCCONNELL AND MS CRISTA FITZHENRY (6) MS NATALIE SUTTON (7) MR BORIS HOREL AND MS AURELIE HAROUTUNIAN (8) MR ADAM PARKINSON AND MR FRANK PARKINSON
Decision date: 17 July 2013
Neutral citation: [2013] UKUT 329 (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 Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) denied the freeholder a proper opportunity to participate when it determined compensation on paper and later awarded £72,238.80. The Upper Tribunal held the LVT failed to comply with Regulation 13(2) procedural requirements and wrongly relied on a unilateral letter saying the landlord did not wish to respond, causing substantial prejudice. The LVT's decision of 25 August 2010 was quashed and the compensation issue remitted for rehearing at an oral hearing.
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
When an LVT determines part of an application without an oral hearing it must comply with Regulation 13(2): notify parties that the matter will be decided without an oral hearing, invite written representations, set time limits and explain how the matter will be determined; and a tribunal should not accept a unilateral representation that a party does not wish to respond without first checking with that party where it is highly improbable, given prior participation, that the party would abstain.
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 tribunal noted but did not decide that it may be permissible to decide a discrete part of an application on paper even if the wider application proceeds by an oral hearing. It also observed that the LVT's earlier directions (paragraph 31 of its first decision) were not sufficiently clear to meet Regulation 13(2)(d).