London Borough of Brent v Shulem B Association Ltd [2011] EWHC 1663 (Ch) (29 June 2011)

London Borough of Brent v Shulem B Association Ltd [2011] EWHC 1663 (Ch) (29 June 2011)

The letter of 23 February 2006 was not a valid demand under clause 2(6) of the lease or section 20B(1) because it was based on estimated, not actual, costs and did not comply with the contractual or statutory requirements. However, it was a valid notification under section 20B(2) as it notified the lessee in writing that costs had been incurred and that the lessee would be required to contribute, thereby preserving the lessor's right to recover the service charge for costs incurred within the relevant period.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1663 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT; Defendant/appellant: SHULEM B ASSOCIATION LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Decision on Strike Out Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Charges, Lease Interpretation, Limitation Periods, Section 20 B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Service Charges Lease Interpretation Limitation Periods Section 20 B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT

Claimant/respondent

SHULEM B ASSOCIATION LIMITED

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Decision on Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What degree of formality is required for a lessor's demand for service charge under a lease?
  2. 2 What are the requirements for a valid demand or notification under section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985?
  3. 3 Did the letter of 23 February 2006 constitute a valid demand or notification for the purposes of section 20B?

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 23 February 2006 was not a valid demand under clause 2(6) of the lease or section 20B(1) because it was based on estimated, not actual, costs and did not comply with the contractual or statutory requirements. However, it was a valid notification under section 20B(2) as it notified the lessee in writing that costs had been incurred and that the lessee would be required to contribute, thereby preserving the lessor's right to recover the service charge for costs incurred within the relevant period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed; Judge Cowell's decision upheld that the letter of 23 February 2006 was a valid notification under section 20B(2)