Michael successfully represented a landlord in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). The appeal concerned the limits on the FTT’s jurisdiction to attach conditions to the grant of dispensation from consultation requirements.
The FTT at first instance had granted dispensation but imposed two conditions: The first being that the landlord would not seek to recover the costs of a waking watch via the service charge and the second that the landlord would not seek to recover its costs of the dispensation application via the service charge.
The Upper Tribunal accepted Michael’s argument that any prejudice, which would justify the imposition of conditions, had to flow from the breach of the consultation requirements to be relevant. It also accepted his submissions that the costs of the waking watch did not flow from the failure to consult and that the FTT had taken into account irrelevant considerations in trying to limit the recovery of the costs of the dispensation application by way of the service charge.
The Upper Tribunal therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the conditions imposed by the FTT and declined to impose any of its own.
Please click here for a link to the Decision.