Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Assethold Limited v Eveline Road RTM Company Limited

[2024] EWCA Civ 187
A building was split into smaller sections, each qualifying for its own right-to-manage company. The court decided one company could manage the whole building, even though it contains smaller sections also eligible for separate management, because the law allows for this.

Key Facts

  • No 36 Eveline Road, Mitcham, originally two terraced houses, converted into four flats.
  • Lessees formed an RTM company to acquire the right to manage.
  • No 36 is not structurally detached but is a self-contained part of a building.
  • Freehold is registered under three separate titles, owned by Assethold.
  • The RTM company served a claim notice for No 36 as a whole.
  • Assethold argued that two RTM companies should be formed, one for each original house.
  • The Upper Tribunal ruled in favor of the RTM company.

Legal Principles

The right to manage under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 applies to 'premises' defined in section 72.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Section 72

A 'self-contained part of a building' must meet specific criteria regarding vertical division, independent redevelopment, and services (Section 72(3), (4)).

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Section 72(3), (4)

An RTM company cannot acquire the right to manage more than one self-contained building or part of a building (Ninety Broomfield Road RTM Co Ltd v Triplerose Ltd).

Ninety Broomfield Road RTM Co Ltd v Triplerose Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ, [2016] 1 WLR 275

The purpose of the 2002 Act is to confer management rights on a body accountable to the tenants of the relevant building (FirstPort Property Services Ltd v Settlers Court RTM Co Ltd).

FirstPort Property Services Ltd v Settlers Court RTM Co Ltd [2022] UKSC 1, [2022] 1 WLR 519

Section 73(4) and Section 81(3) envisage the possibility of premises containing other premises that satisfy the definition of 'premises' in section 72.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Sections 73(4), 81(3)

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The court found that No 36 satisfied the definition of 'premises' in section 72, despite containing parts that also satisfied the definition. Triplerose was distinguished as dealing with multiple structurally detached buildings, not internal subdivisions within a single property. The Act itself allows for premises containing smaller premises that also meet the definition.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.