Michael Connell & Anor v Beal Developments Limited & Ors

Michael Connell & Anor v Beal Developments Limited & Ors

The FTT was wrong to strike out the appellants’ application as frivolous or vexatious under rule 9(3)(d) because the appellants were entitled to a determination of their own service charges, and the prior determination for a different leaseholder did not preclude their application. The FTT’s reliance on the motives of a non-party and on proportionality was misplaced and did not justify depriving the appellants of their statutory and procedural rights.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Connell; Appellant: Debbie Lynn; Respondent: Beal Developments Limited; Respondent: Eastman Securities Limited; Respondent: Burton Waters Management Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Landlord and Tenant Service Charges Appeal / Appeal From First Tier Tribunal to Upper Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; FTT decision set aside and remitted to a differently constituted panel for case management and determination.
Legal Topics
Service Charges, Striking Out Applications, Section 27 a Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Rule 9(3) Tribunal Procedure Rules, Right to Fair Hearing
Landlord and Tenant Tribunal Procedure Service Charges Striking Out Applications Section 27 a Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Rule 9(3) Tribunal Procedure Rules Right to Fair Hearing

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

Parties

Michael Connell

Appellant

Debbie Lynn

Appellant

Beal Developments Limited

Respondent

Eastman Securities Limited

Respondent

Burton Waters Management Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Landlord and Tenant Service Charges Appeal / Appeal From First Tier Tribunal to Upper Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the FTT was entitled to strike out the appellants’ application as frivolous or vexatious under rule 9(3)(d)
  2. 2 Whether a prior determination of service charges for a different leaseholder precludes a fresh application by other leaseholders
  3. 3 Whether the FTT’s reliance on motives of a non-party justified striking out the application

Ratio Decidendi

The FTT was wrong to strike out the appellants’ application as frivolous or vexatious under rule 9(3)(d) because the appellants were entitled to a determination of their own service charges, and the prior determination for a different leaseholder did not preclude their application. The FTT’s reliance on the motives of a non-party and on proportionality was misplaced and did not justify depriving the appellants of their statutory and procedural rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; FTT decision set aside and remitted to a differently constituted panel for case management and determination.

Orders

  • FTT decision striking out the appellants’ application is set aside.
  • Matter remitted to a differently constituted FTT panel for further case management and determination.