Oakfern Properties v Desmond Ruddy [electronic resource]
Oakfern Properties v Desmond Ruddy [electronic resource]
- 2006
[2006] EWCA Civ 1389, 25 October 2006. The appellant owned the head-lease of 24 separate residential flats and a property management company was the tenant. The respondent was a subtenant of one of the flats. The subtenants were obliged to pay maintenance charges to the property management company , which had been levied on the property management company by the freeholder. The respondent sought to challenge the maintenance charge by relying on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 on the basis that it was a "service charge" and was unreasonable in amount. Preliminary issues had been determined by the leasehold valuation tribunal in the respondent's favour. The appellant submitted that it could not have been Parliament's intention that a mesne landlord, such as the property management company, should be able to take advantage of the service charge provisions of the 1985 Act. "Held": appeal dismissed. S 38 of the 1985 Act, which defined "dwelling", did not require that the tenant had to be in occupation of the dwelling, therefore it could include a tenant who had sublet. The property management company was a tenant of a building comprising a number of dwellings but was not a tenant of a building occupied as a separate dwelling.
OAKFERN PROPERTIES LTD V RUDDY
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S18
RENT ACT 1968
RENT ACT 1977
HORFORD INVESTMENTS LTD V LAMBERT
HERON MAPLE HOUSE LTD V CENTRAL ESTATES LTD
LONDON
[2006] EWCA Civ 1389, 25 October 2006. The appellant owned the head-lease of 24 separate residential flats and a property management company was the tenant. The respondent was a subtenant of one of the flats. The subtenants were obliged to pay maintenance charges to the property management company , which had been levied on the property management company by the freeholder. The respondent sought to challenge the maintenance charge by relying on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 on the basis that it was a "service charge" and was unreasonable in amount. Preliminary issues had been determined by the leasehold valuation tribunal in the respondent's favour. The appellant submitted that it could not have been Parliament's intention that a mesne landlord, such as the property management company, should be able to take advantage of the service charge provisions of the 1985 Act. "Held": appeal dismissed. S 38 of the 1985 Act, which defined "dwelling", did not require that the tenant had to be in occupation of the dwelling, therefore it could include a tenant who had sublet. The property management company was a tenant of a building comprising a number of dwellings but was not a tenant of a building occupied as a separate dwelling.
OAKFERN PROPERTIES LTD V RUDDY
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 S18
RENT ACT 1968
RENT ACT 1977
HORFORD INVESTMENTS LTD V LAMBERT
HERON MAPLE HOUSE LTD V CENTRAL ESTATES LTD
LONDON