Arrowgame Ltd v Maxwell Brent Wildsmith & Ors

Arrowgame Ltd v Maxwell Brent Wildsmith & Ors

The notice served under s.27 was valid as the matters relied upon were incapable of remedy, and even if deficient, the court would exercise its discretion under s.29(6)(b) to make the acquisition order. The judge properly exercised discretion in making the acquisition order and refusing to suspend it, given the landlord's persistent obstruction and litigation, and the development potential was not sufficient to outweigh the lessees' legitimate concerns.

Parties
Appellant (defendant): Arrowgame Limited; Respondents (claimants): Maxwell Brent Wildsmith and others; Intervener: Landgate (New Homes) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Acquisition Order, Interpretation of Statutory Notice, Discretionary Relief, Management of Leasehold Premises
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Acquisition Order Interpretation of Statutory Notice Discretionary Relief Management of Leasehold Premises

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arrowgame Limited

Appellant (defendant)

Maxwell Brent Wildsmith and others

Respondents (claimants)

Landgate (New Homes) Limited

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of notice under s.27 Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
  2. 2 Court's discretion to make acquisition order under s.29
  3. 3 Whether notice must specify remedial steps for remediable matters

Ratio Decidendi

The notice served under s.27 was valid as the matters relied upon were incapable of remedy, and even if deficient, the court would exercise its discretion under s.29(6)(b) to make the acquisition order. The judge properly exercised discretion in making the acquisition order and refusing to suspend it, given the landlord's persistent obstruction and litigation, and the development potential was not sufficient to outweigh the lessees' legitimate concerns.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Acquisition order affirmed; Arrowgame Limited to convey its interest in the Property to the Twelfth Claimant upon price agreement or determination by LVT.
  • No suspension of acquisition order.