Avon Grounds Rents Limited v Kirstie Ward
[2023] UKUT 88 (LC)
Assethold Limited v 159-167 Prince of Wales Road RTM Company Limited
12 September 2023
[2023] UKUT 220 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
An RTM company sued a landlord, then dropped the case. The judge said the company can't now pretend the landlord wasn't a landlord and avoid paying the landlord's legal fees.
Key Facts
- •Assethold Limited (appellant) appealed the First-tier Tribunal's (FTT) refusal to order costs against 159-167 Prince of Wales Road RTM Company Limited (respondent).
- •The respondent RTM company initiated proceedings against the appellant, claiming the right to manage, but withdrew its claim.
- •The appellant argued it was the equitable owner of the freehold and headlease, though not yet the legal owner.
- •The FTT held that only legal ownership was relevant for costs under section 88 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
- •The appellant argued estoppel prevented the respondent from denying the appellant's landlord status for costs purposes.
- •The respondent argued the statute is specific about who is entitled to costs and estoppel cannot override statutory provisions.
Legal Principles
RTM companies are liable for reasonable costs incurred by a landlord in consequence of a claim notice if the application to the FTT is dismissed or withdrawn.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, sections 88 and 89
Estoppel may prevent a party from denying a statement made implicitly by conduct.
Plintal SA v 36-48A Edgewood Drive RTM Co Ltd, Benedictus v Jalaram, and case law on estoppel.
Estoppel cannot be used to create a jurisdiction where none exists or to override a statute.
Cobbe v Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd, Actionstrength Ltd v International Glass Engineering, Benedictus v Jalaram, and Dutton v Sneyd Bycars Co Ltd
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the appeal.
The UT found the respondent, by issuing proceedings against the appellant as landlord, implicitly represented the appellant's landlord status. The UT held this estopped the respondent from denying that status for the purpose of costs under section 88. The UT distinguished cases where estoppel would create a jurisdiction or contradict a statute.
Similar Cases
Brunswick Mansions Management Company Limited v Triplerose Limited
[2023] UKUT 31 (LC)
Assethold Limited v Nelio Patricio Teixeira Franco
[2022] UKUT 285 (LC)
Khalid Qayyum Rana & Anor v Maitland Court Limited
[2024] UKUT 122 (LC)
Assethold Limited v 429 New Cross Road RTM Company Limited
[2024] UKUT 113 (LC)