Brickfield Properties Limited v Oakwood Court Blocks 9 & 10 RTM Company Limited

Decision date: 26 March 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKUT 133 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

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: medium

This appeal concerns whether services to Blocks 9 & 10 at Oakwood Court can be provided independently under s.72(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 so as to allow an RTM acquisition. The First-tier Tribunal found, on the evidence, that gas could be made independent by creating a new connection causing only a short interruption (around 8 hours) and identified practical options to separate cold water supplies; the FTT preferred much of the landlord’s expert evidence but discounted the tenant’s expert for advocacy. The FTT therefore moved towards upholding the RTM claim on the gas point and considered separability of water to be achievable by identified works.

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

The judgment indicates that tribunals should assess expert evidence holistically, giving weight to credibility and factual accuracy and may supplement expert evidence with their own general knowledge; and that the statutory question of whether works are “likely to cause a significant interruption” to occupiers of the rest of the building is to be judged by the effect on those occupiers (so that relatively brief, temporary suspensions—e.g. an interruption of around eight hours—may not be “significant” for s.72(4)).

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 notes record obiter observations that the Deputy President’s approach in St Stephens Mansions (identifying the point where equipment controlled by a party first operates) is a useful analytical tool for deciding where independence of supply is assessed, and that a shared mains upstream of that point does not necessarily prevent a finding of independence under s.72(4).