Assethold Ltd v 15 Yonge Park RTM Co Ltd, Court of Appeal - Lands Tribunal, September 27, 2011, [2011] UKUT 379 (LC)

Resolution Date:September 27, 2011
Issuing Organization:Lands Tribunal
Actores:Assethold Ltd v 15 Yonge Park RTM Co Ltd

2© CROWN COPYRIGHT 20111UT Neutral citation number: [2011] UKUT 379 (LC) UTLC Case Number: LRX/15/2011 TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007 LANDLORD AND TENANT - right to manage - claim notice - validity - contents of claim notice - whether failure to provide correct address of RTM was an inaccuracy - held that it was not - whether particulars refers to subsections 80(4) and 80(8) or subsections 80(2) to 80(8) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 - sections 80 and 81 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THELEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL BETWEEN ASSETHOLD LIMITED Appellant and 15 YONGE PARK RTM COMPANY LIMITED Respondent Re: 15 YONGE PARK LONDON N4 3NUBefore: Her Honour Judge Walden-SmithDecision on Written RepresentationThe following cases are referred to in this decision:Moskovitz v 75 Worple Road RTM Company Ltd [2010] UKUT 393 (LC)Cadogan v Morris (1999) 31 HLR 732Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749DECISIONIntroduction1. This is an appeal by way of review from the decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for the London Assessment Panel dated 5 November 2010 under section 84(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Permission was granted by the President on 6 April 2011.2. The Respondent company concedes that the address of the RTM company was wrongly stated. The address of the RTM company was stated on the claim form to be c/o Canonbury Management, One Carey Lane, London EC2V 8AE. In fact, the correct address was Blackwell House, Guildhall Yard, London as at the date of the claim. The registered office given was therefore incorrect.3. By reason of the wrong address for the RTM being included on the claim form, that claim notice was, prima facie, invalidated by reason of a failure to comply with the provisions of section 80(5) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CALRA 2002) which provides that the claim notice``must state the name and registered office of the RTM company,'' and the LVT was therefore wrong to conclude that the address on the claim notice was correct.4. The Respondent further concedes that the LVT were wrong to conclude that as there was no evidence of prejudice suffered by the Appellant in connection with the inaccuracy of the address, this avoided any issue with respect to any inaccuracy in the address. There is no balance of prejudice test and, as is properly recognised by the Respondent, the reference to it by the LVT was misconceived.5. The issue for determination is whether the notice complied with the statutory provisions in sections 80 and 81 of CALRA 2002 and whether the error...

To continue reading