Dr Christopher John Schilling and Mrs Joan M. Schilling and others v Canary Riverside Development Pte Limited and others
Dr Christopher John Schilling and Mrs Joan M. Schilling and others v Canary Riverside Development Pte Limited and others
- 2006
LT (LRX/26/2005; LRX/31/2005; LRX/47/2005), 6 December 2005. Concerns two service charge appeals against the decision of the LVT of the London Rent Assessment Panel issued on 11 January 2005. These appeals were heard at the same time as the related costs decision (LRX/65/2005, L135107). S challenged the LVT's decision on a vast range of service charge items. S also claimed that certain terms of their leases were unfair terms within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 and were therefore not enforceable against them. "Held": appeal in respect of the burden of proof dismissed. The initial onus lies on the tenants (S) applying to the LVT claiming that the service charges were unreasonable, to produce some evidence to support their case. They cannot simply put the landlord to proof. The judge agreed with the landlord (C) that the terms of their leases in question were fair, disagreeing with the LVT's conclusions. C's submission that the LVT had no jurisdiction to decide service charge issues was also dismissed.
SCHILLING AND SCHILLING V CANARY RIVERSIDE PTE LTD
YORKBROOK INVESTMENTS V BATTEN
NIMMO V ALEXANDER COWAN AND SONS LTD
ARBRATH V NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO
UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS REGULATIONS 1999
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S27A
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S19
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND V ETRIDGE
SCHILLING V CANARY RIVERSIDE DEVELOPMENT
England and Wales--1543-
LT (LRX/26/2005; LRX/31/2005; LRX/47/2005), 6 December 2005. Concerns two service charge appeals against the decision of the LVT of the London Rent Assessment Panel issued on 11 January 2005. These appeals were heard at the same time as the related costs decision (LRX/65/2005, L135107). S challenged the LVT's decision on a vast range of service charge items. S also claimed that certain terms of their leases were unfair terms within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 and were therefore not enforceable against them. "Held": appeal in respect of the burden of proof dismissed. The initial onus lies on the tenants (S) applying to the LVT claiming that the service charges were unreasonable, to produce some evidence to support their case. They cannot simply put the landlord to proof. The judge agreed with the landlord (C) that the terms of their leases in question were fair, disagreeing with the LVT's conclusions. C's submission that the LVT had no jurisdiction to decide service charge issues was also dismissed.
SCHILLING AND SCHILLING V CANARY RIVERSIDE PTE LTD
YORKBROOK INVESTMENTS V BATTEN
NIMMO V ALEXANDER COWAN AND SONS LTD
ARBRATH V NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO
UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS REGULATIONS 1999
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S27A
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S19
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND V ETRIDGE
SCHILLING V CANARY RIVERSIDE DEVELOPMENT
England and Wales--1543-