Canary Riverside Pte Ltd v Schilling & Ors [2005] EWLands LRX_65_2005 (16 December 2005)

Canary Riverside Pte Ltd v Schilling & Ors [2005] EWLands LRX_65_2005 (16 December 2005)

The landlord's appeal is dismissed on the ground of failure to comply with the lease's procedural requirements for revising and notifying estimated building expenditure before demanding additional service charge. The lease does entitle the landlord to recover LVT costs as service charge if proper procedure is followed. Paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 12 CLRA 2002 does not bar recovery of such costs via service charge. The relevant lease term is not unfair under the 1999 Regulations. The LVT's assessment of the reasonableness of the costs is subject to review, but the appeal is dismissed on procedural grounds.

Citation
[2005] EWLands LRX_65_2005
Parties
Claimant: Canary Riverside Pte Limited and Others; Respondent: Dr & Mrs Schilling and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Landlord's Appeal Against Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Decision / Appeal Before Lands Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Charges, Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Costs, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Statutory Interpretation, Reasonableness of Legal Costs
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Consumer Protection Service Charges Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Costs Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Statutory Interpretation Reasonableness of Legal Costs

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canary Riverside Pte Limited and Others

Claimant

Dr & Mrs Schilling and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Landlord's Appeal Against Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Decision / Appeal Before Lands Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether landlord's LVT costs are recoverable as service charge under the lease
  2. 2 Effect of Paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 12 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 on recovery of LVT costs
  3. 3 Application of Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 to lease provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord's appeal is dismissed on the ground of failure to comply with the lease's procedural requirements for revising and notifying estimated building expenditure before demanding additional service charge. The lease does entitle the landlord to recover LVT costs as service charge if proper procedure is followed. Paragraph 10(4) of Schedule 12 CLRA 2002 does not bar recovery of such costs via service charge. The relevant lease term is not unfair under the 1999 Regulations. The LVT's assessment of the reasonableness of the costs is subject to review, but the appeal is dismissed on procedural grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Landlord's appeal against LVT decision is dismissed on procedural grounds; costs not recoverable for the relevant period due to failure to comply with lease procedure.
  • Findings on other grounds (statutory bar, unfair terms, reasonableness of costs) provided for guidance but not determinative of outcome.