Arnold v Britton and others

Arnold v Britton and others

The service charge clauses in the relevant leases provide for a fixed annual sum of £90, increasing by 10% per annum compounded, not a variable sum subject to a cap. The language is clear and unambiguous, and commercial common sense or subsequent hardship does not justify departing from the natural meaning. The letting scheme provisions do not override the express terms of the lease. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Respondent: Arnold; Appellants: Britton and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lease Interpretation, Service Charges, Long Residential Leases, Contractual Construction, Implied Terms
Land Law Contract Law Lease Interpretation Service Charges Long Residential Leases Contractual Construction Implied Terms

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arnold

Respondent

Britton and others

Appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of service charge clauses in long leases
  2. 2 Whether the service charge is a fixed sum or a capped variable sum
  3. 3 Whether the clause is subject to statutory regulation as a 'service charge' under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Ratio Decidendi

The service charge clauses in the relevant leases provide for a fixed annual sum of £90, increasing by 10% per annum compounded, not a variable sum subject to a cap. The language is clear and unambiguous, and commercial common sense or subsequent hardship does not justify departing from the natural meaning. The letting scheme provisions do not override the express terms of the lease. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; the service charge clauses are to be interpreted as fixed sums increasing by 10% per annum compounded.