[2003] EWCA Civ 1049, 10 July 2003. A manager (M) was appointed by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT), pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Part II, to manage a block of flats owned by the applicant landlord (St A). The LVT granted as 'just and equitable' an application from the respondent (O) under the 1987 Act s24(9) to vary the order by extending the term of M's appointment by a further two years. The LT refused to grant St A permission to appeal against the LVT decision on the grounds that, although the LVT should have considered whether it was just and convenient to extend the appointment rather than just and equitable, there was no reason that the LVT could not have found, on the material before it, that it was also convenient. St A applied to CA for permission to appeal contending that: (1) the LVT had failed to consider whether one of the circumstances in s24(2) of the Act had been satisfied; (2) St A had not been shown to be in breach of its obligations under the leases; and (3) an application to vary was akin to the appointment of a manager in the first place. "Held", application dismissed. There is a distinction between varying s24(9) and making an order s24(2). S24(9) did not require the s24(2) tests to be met all over again on an application to extend the term of the appointment. The LVT clearly regarded the variation as convenient as well as just and equitable. There was no prospect of a successful appeal.