Arrowgame Ltd v Maxwell Brent Wildsmith & Ors [2012] EWHC 3315 (Ch) (22 November 2012)

Arrowgame Ltd v Maxwell Brent Wildsmith & Ors [2012] EWHC 3315 (Ch) (22 November 2012)

The notice served under s.27 was valid as it sufficiently informed the landlord of the grounds and matters relied upon; even if deficient, the court would exercise its discretion under s.29(6)(b) to make the acquisition order. The judge properly exercised discretion, considering all relevant factors, and the acquisition order was the only effective remedy for persistent obstruction and litigation by Arrowgame and Mr Goodman.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3315 (Ch)
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 Orders, Interpretation of Statutory Notice Requirements, Discretionary Relief, Management of Leasehold Premises
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Acquisition Orders Interpretation of Statutory Notice Requirements 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 4 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 Appropriateness of suspending acquisition order

Ratio Decidendi

The notice served under s.27 was valid as it sufficiently informed the landlord of the grounds and matters relied upon; even if deficient, the court would exercise its discretion under s.29(6)(b) to make the acquisition order. The judge properly exercised discretion, considering all relevant factors, and the acquisition order was the only effective remedy for persistent obstruction and litigation by Arrowgame and Mr Goodman.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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