Riverside Crem 3 Limited v Sol Unsdorfer & Ors

Riverside Crem 3 Limited v Sol Unsdorfer & Ors

Riverside was not permitted to raise a new jurisdictional point for the first time on appeal because the procedural requirements could have been waived, the respondents had relied to their detriment on Riverside's previous representations, and no cogent explanation was provided for the omission. The First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to make the order, and the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Riverside CREM 3 Limited; First Respondent: Sol Unsdorfer; Second Respondent: Circus Apartments Limited; Third Respondent: Leaseholders represented by the Residents Association of Canary Riverside; Fourth Respondent: Octagon Overseas Limited; Fifth Respondent: Canary Riverside Estate Management Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (property Chamber)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Manager, Variation of Management Order, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Procedural Waiver, Successors in Title, Service Charge Liability
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Appointment of Manager Variation of Management Order Jurisdiction of Tribunal Procedural Waiver Successors in Title Service Charge Liability

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riverside CREM 3 Limited

Appellant

Sol Unsdorfer

First Respondent

Circus Apartments Limited

Second Respondent

Leaseholders represented by the Residents Association of Canary Riverside

Third Respondent

Octagon Overseas Limited

Fourth Respondent

Canary Riverside Estate Management Limited

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From First Tier Tribunal (property Chamber)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Riverside could raise a new jurisdictional point for the first time on appeal
  2. 2 Whether Riverside is bound by the management order as a successor in title
  3. 3 Whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to vary the management order to bind Riverside

Ratio Decidendi

Riverside was not permitted to raise a new jurisdictional point for the first time on appeal because the procedural requirements could have been waived, the respondents had relied to their detriment on Riverside's previous representations, and no cogent explanation was provided for the omission. The First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to make the order, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.