Michael Rossman v Michael Rossman v The Crown Estate Commissioners

Decision date: 3 June 2015

Neutral citation: [2015] UKUT 288 (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 a fixed 0.8% service‑charge contribution in Mr Rossman's 1969/1989 lease was a sufficiently serious "defect" under section 57(6) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to require modification when granting a new lease. The Upper Tribunal held the term was a defect and unreasonable to include unmodified, set aside the First‑tier Tribunal's decision to retain it, and remitted the case to the FTT to determine appropriate replacement wording with full evidence.

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: medium

A defect under s.57(6)(a) is assessed objectively from the standpoint of a reasonable landlord and tenant and must amount to a shortcoming below an objectively satisfactory standard; modification is permissible only where necessary to remedy that defect, and proposed replacement terms must themselves be suitable and workable (s.57(6) does not allow substituting one inappropriate term for another).

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 RICS Management Code is only guidance and cannot alone justify varying lease terms under s.57; various apportionment methods for mixed‑use developments exist and floor‑area apportionment may be impractical or contentious without detailed expert evidence; whether the 1999 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations applied need not be decided where modification is ordered on other grounds.

Warning

Some repetition and duplicated passages appear in the chunk. Notes contain some repetition and duplicated passages.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML