Members of the Orchard Court Residents Association v St Anthony's Homes Ltd

Members of the Orchard Court Residents Association v St Anthony's Homes Ltd

Section 24(2) criteria do not apply to variations under section 24(9); the Tribunal was not required to be satisfied of those thresholds again when extending the manager's appointment. The Tribunal's use of 'just and equitable' was sufficient and implied consideration of convenience. There is no real prospect of a successful appeal on the substantive grounds.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: Members of the Orchard Court Residents Association; Defendants/applicants: St Anthony's Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal From Lands Tribunal Refusal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Appointment and Extension of Manager Under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Variation of Tribunal Orders, Appeal Rights From Lands Tribunal
Landlord and Tenant Law Appointment and Extension of Manager Under Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Variation of Tribunal Orders Appeal Rights From Lands Tribunal

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Members of the Orchard Court Residents Association

Claimants/respondents

St Anthony's Homes Limited

Defendants/applicants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal From Lands Tribunal Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 24(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 applies to variations of orders under section 24(9)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in extending the manager's appointment without satisfying section 24(2) thresholds
  3. 3 Whether the use of 'just and equitable' instead of 'just and convenient' was a material error

Ratio Decidendi

Section 24(2) criteria do not apply to variations under section 24(9); the Tribunal was not required to be satisfied of those thresholds again when extending the manager's appointment. The Tribunal's use of 'just and equitable' was sufficient and implied consideration of convenience. There is no real prospect of a successful appeal on the substantive grounds.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Permission to appeal refused