Schilling v Canary Riverside Development Ptd Ltd [2005] EWLands LRX_26_2005 (06 December 2005)

Schilling v Canary Riverside Development Ptd Ltd [2005] EWLands LRX_26_2005 (06 December 2005)

The LVT did not err in its approach to the burden of proof, as decisions were made on the balance of probabilities after considering all evidence. Apportionment of costs must follow the lease terms and is not subject to review for reasonableness under s.19 of the 1985 Act. The LVT erred in reducing management fees and reallocating garden maintenance costs without proper basis, but was correct in its approach to electricity charges and the integrated reception system expenditure.

Citation
[2005] EWLands LRX_26_2005
Parties
Claimant: Dr. Christopher John Schilling; Claimant: Mrs Joan M. Schilling; Claimant: Joined tenants (names in Schedule to Rule 38 application dated 24 August 2005); Respondent: Canary Riverside Development PTD Limited; Advocate: Eversheds (for Appellant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (lvt) Regarding Service Charges
Outcome
Applicants' appeal dismissed; Respondents' appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Service Charges, Reasonableness of Charges, Burden of Proof, Apportionment of Costs, Lease Interpretation
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Service Charges Reasonableness of Charges Burden of Proof Apportionment of Costs Lease Interpretation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Christopher John Schilling

Claimant

Mrs Joan M. Schilling

Claimant

Joined tenants (names in Schedule to Rule 38 application dated 24 August 2005)

Claimant

Canary Riverside Development PTD Limited

Respondent

Eversheds (for Appellant)

Advocate

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (lvt) Regarding Service Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the LVT misapplied the burden of proof regarding disputed service charges
  2. 2 Whether apportionment of costs under the lease is reviewable for reasonableness under s.19 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
  3. 3 Whether certain management and maintenance charges were reasonably incurred or properly apportioned

Ratio Decidendi

The LVT did not err in its approach to the burden of proof, as decisions were made on the balance of probabilities after considering all evidence. Apportionment of costs must follow the lease terms and is not subject to review for reasonableness under s.19 of the 1985 Act. The LVT erred in reducing management fees and reallocating garden maintenance costs without proper basis, but was correct in its approach to electricity charges and the integrated reception system expenditure.

Court Disposition

Applicants' appeal dismissed; Respondents' appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part.

Orders

  • Applicants' appeal on burden of proof and apportionment dismissed.
  • Respondents' appeal allowed regarding management fees and garden maintenance costs; LVT's reductions reversed.