Criterion Buildings Ltd v McKinsey & Company Inc (UK) & Anor

Criterion Buildings Ltd v McKinsey & Company Inc (UK) & Anor

The claimant complied with the lease in apportioning service charges, demanding contributions to sinking and reserve funds, and demanding contributions for goods lift refurbishment. The landlord's determinations were rational and contractually compliant. The defendants failed to establish a prima facie case of unfairness or breach, and were not entitled to set off sums under the deed of variation due to lack of receipted invoices and other contractual requirements.

Parties
Claimant: Criterion Buildings Ltd; First Defendant: McKinsey & Company Inc (United Kingdom); Second Defendant: McKinsey & Company Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Property/lease Dispute) / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in full; all defences dismissed.
Legal Topics
Service Charge Apportionment, Sinking and Reserve Funds, Lease Interpretation, Set Off Rights, Good Estate Management, Burden of Proof in Service Charge Claims
Landlord and Tenant Commercial Property Law Contract Law Service Charge Apportionment Sinking and Reserve Funds Lease Interpretation Set Off Rights Good Estate Management +1 more

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Criterion Buildings Ltd

Claimant

McKinsey & Company Inc (United Kingdom)

First Defendant

McKinsey & Company Inc

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Property/lease Dispute) / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant properly apportioned service charges under the lease
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was entitled to demand contributions to sinking and reserve funds
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to demand contributions for goods lift refurbishment

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant complied with the lease in apportioning service charges, demanding contributions to sinking and reserve funds, and demanding contributions for goods lift refurbishment. The landlord's determinations were rational and contractually compliant. The defendants failed to establish a prima facie case of unfairness or breach, and were not entitled to set off sums under the deed of variation due to lack of receipted invoices and other contractual requirements.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in full; all defences dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the sums claimed by the claimant for service charges, including all disputed apportionments and sinking/reserve fund contributions.
  • Defendants not entitled to set off any sums against rent or service charges.