Staghold Ltd v Takeda and another
Staghold Ltd v Takeda and another
- 2005
- Estates Gazette [2005] 47 EG 146-152(7) .
Central London County Court, 8 August 2005. Considers whether the Commonhold and Leasehold Act 2002 Sched 12 precluded a landlord from recovering the legal costs of successful proceedings before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) from its tenants by way of service charge. The defendant tenants (T) had brought proceedings in the LVT seeking to challenge the service charges levied by claimant landlord (S) for the years 1997-2003. The LVT dismissed all but one of the challenges and refused to make an order under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s20C preventing S from recovering from the tenants the legal costs for the LVT hearing as service charges. T denied on the proper construction of the lease and by virtue of the 2002 Act Sched 12 para 10(4) that they should pay their share of S's costs. "Held": judgment for S. On the proper construction of the provisions of the lease, legal costs incurred by S in defending the LVT applications were recoverable under the lease. Where the LVT had already refused to make an order under s20(C) of the 1985 Act, para 10(4) of Sched 12 to the 2002 Act did not preclude the recovery of legal costs by a landlord as part of the service charges.
STAGHOLD V TAKEDA
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S20C
COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD ACT 2002 SCHED 12 PARA 10(4)
Central London County Court, 8 August 2005. Considers whether the Commonhold and Leasehold Act 2002 Sched 12 precluded a landlord from recovering the legal costs of successful proceedings before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) from its tenants by way of service charge. The defendant tenants (T) had brought proceedings in the LVT seeking to challenge the service charges levied by claimant landlord (S) for the years 1997-2003. The LVT dismissed all but one of the challenges and refused to make an order under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s20C preventing S from recovering from the tenants the legal costs for the LVT hearing as service charges. T denied on the proper construction of the lease and by virtue of the 2002 Act Sched 12 para 10(4) that they should pay their share of S's costs. "Held": judgment for S. On the proper construction of the provisions of the lease, legal costs incurred by S in defending the LVT applications were recoverable under the lease. Where the LVT had already refused to make an order under s20(C) of the 1985 Act, para 10(4) of Sched 12 to the 2002 Act did not preclude the recovery of legal costs by a landlord as part of the service charges.
STAGHOLD V TAKEDA
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S20C
COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD ACT 2002 SCHED 12 PARA 10(4)