Background
The respondents held a long lease of a maisonette at 14 Abercorn Place, London. Lonestar, the freehold company, managed both No. 14 and adjoining No. 12, where the company’s majority shareholders lived with a penthouse flat extending across the top floor of both buildings. A 2024 tribunal decision had held that the No. 14 leaseholders were not liable for works carried out only to No. 12.
The First-tier Tribunal appointed a manager for both buildings under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, principally because relations had broken down and the directors did not properly understand the leases. Lonestar appealed, arguing among other things that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over two separate buildings and that joint management was unjustified.
The Court’s Holding
The Upper Tribunal rejected the jurisdictional challenge. Part II permits an application concerning two or more qualifying premises, and a single leaseholder may seek a manager for more than one building. The fact that Nos. 12 and 14 were separate buildings did not prevent such an order, nor did the earlier service-charge decision create an issue estoppel.
But the Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. The First-tier Tribunal had not adequately explained why both buildings needed to be managed together or considered whether an order limited to No. 14 would achieve the relevant objectives. The evidence supported a manager for No. 14, given the serious breakdown in relations, delayed repairs, and conflict of interest in Lonestar’s control of that building; it did not justify imposing management on No. 12.
Key Takeaways
- A tribunal may appoint one manager for multiple qualifying premises under Part II of the 1987 Act.
- The “just and convenient” test requires a proportionate order tied to the management problems actually established.
- A manager remains appointed for No. 14, including the part of the penthouse above it, but not for No. 12.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the breadth of the statutory jurisdiction while stressing that it is a discretionary and potentially intrusive remedy. A tribunal must distinguish between separate buildings and lease obligations, and cannot extend a management order beyond what the evidence and its remedial purpose support.
The parties were invited to agree modifications to the management order; pending that modified order, the manager remained responsible for both buildings.