Arnold v Britton & Ors

Arnold v Britton & Ors

The five versions of clause 3(2) in the leases are to be construed as requiring the lessee to pay a fixed sum of £90 for the first year of the term, increasing by 10% per annum on a compound basis, and not as a variable service charge. The language of the clauses is clear and unambiguous, and the commercial consequences, even if onerous, do not justify a different construction. Accordingly, the sums payable are not 'service charges' within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Paddy Arnold; Defendants/respondents: Rodney Britton & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Service Charges, Lease Interpretation, Construction of Commercial Contracts, Inflation Adjustments in Leases
Landlord and Tenant Law Contract Law Service Charges Lease Interpretation Construction of Commercial Contracts Inflation Adjustments in Leases

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paddy Arnold

Claimant/appellant

Rodney Britton & Others

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of five versions of a service charge clause in long leases of chalets
  2. 2 Whether the clauses provide for a fixed sum or a variable service charge
  3. 3 Whether the sums payable are 'service charges' under section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Ratio Decidendi

The five versions of clause 3(2) in the leases are to be construed as requiring the lessee to pay a fixed sum of £90 for the first year of the term, increasing by 10% per annum on a compound basis, and not as a variable service charge. The language of the clauses is clear and unambiguous, and the commercial consequences, even if onerous, do not justify a different construction. Accordingly, the sums payable are not 'service charges' within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declarations made by the County Court are set aside
  • The relevant clause in each lease does not provide for the payment of a service charge as defined in section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985