Gilje & Ors v Charlegrove Securities Ltd [2003] EWHC 1284 (Ch) (13 May 2003)

Gilje & Ors v Charlegrove Securities Ltd [2003] EWHC 1284 (Ch) (13 May 2003)

Section 20B does not prevent a landlord from retaining service charge expenditure incurred more than 18 months before the final accounts and demands, where such expenditure is covered by advance payments on account; the 18 month limitation only applies where a further demand is made for additional payment beyond sums already paid on account.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1284 (Ch)
Parties
Claimants: Gilje & Ors; Defendant: Charlegrove Securities Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Preliminary Issue Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Charges, Limitation Periods, Interpretation of Section 20 B Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Service Charges Limitation Periods Interpretation of 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gilje & Ors

Claimants

Charlegrove Securities Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Preliminary Issue Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 prevents a landlord from charging service charge expenditure incurred more than 18 months before the final accounts and demands, where such expenditure is covered by advance payments on account

Ratio Decidendi

Section 20B does not prevent a landlord from retaining service charge expenditure incurred more than 18 months before the final accounts and demands, where such expenditure is covered by advance payments on account; the 18 month limitation only applies where a further demand is made for additional payment beyond sums already paid on account.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Master Price's order affirmed