[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Villatte v 38 Cleveland Square Management Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1106 (29 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1106.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1106

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LANDS TRIBUNAL

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 29th May 2002

1. LORD JUSTICE WARD:This is an application by Mr Villatte for permission to appeal against the decision of the Lands Tribunal of 7th February 2002. The Lands Tribunal in turn were dealing with an appeal from the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in respect of complaints about the service charges for the applicant's flat, that being one of four in a property in Bayswater. This flat is part of a conversion of a no doubt lovely Georgian house. The leasehold interest in the property was acquired by a company formed by the owners of the long leases, of which Mr Villatte was a member. The Lands Tribunal dismissed his appeal and he seeks permission to appeal to this court.
2. The application is brought a fortnight or so out of time, but I can understand the difficulties and I grant the extension of time.
3. I confess that, since at the moment I see scant merit in this application, I had hoped that I could dispose of it on the basis that it is a second appeal, where I would have been content to find that there was no important point of practice or principle arising from it, nor any other compelling reason to allow the appeal to go forward. But I am persuaded by Mr Thacker (for whose submissions pro bono, aided by those who instruct him, who are also acting pro bono, I am grateful) that I cannot take that course, and I do not do so. So the question is whether there are real prospects of success in the appeal.
4. The principal point urged upon me relates to the mismanagement of the landlord company, which failed to hold meetings over many years and had no effectively appointed directors for many years. The argument was advanced in the skeleton argument of Mr Rifat of counsel, who appeared before the Lands Tribunal, and it has been cogently urged before me today by Mr Thacker. It is again with a measure of regret that I find myself driven to conclude that the matters raised are arguable and that permission should be granted to appeal accordingly.
5. The other grounds of appeal have less merit. I see little in the procedural unfairness allegations, which seem to me to have been satisfactorily resolved by the tribunal in the exercise of its discretion, but I will adjourn those questions to be argued on notice to the respondent. I see no merit in the application to appeal costs. That was wholly for the tribunal in the exercise of its discretion and I cannot at the moment see that there is any argument properly to be advanced to the full court.
6. So the reluctant consequence of this application is that there is permission to appeal on the company point. The application to appeal on procedural unfairness will be adjourned to the court dealing with the matter on notice to the respondent.
7. The court should comprise of at least one Lord Justice with Chancery/company law experience (possibly two, if it can be managed) and the constitution had better be a three-judge court. The time estimate will be half a day to a day. I would be grateful to counsel on both sides if they would communicate with the listing office to confirm their estimate of time, so that a proper listing can be arranged for this hearing. The costs will be costs in the appeal.

Order: extension of time granted; permission to appeal on company point granted; application on procedural unfairness point adjourned to the court dealing with the matter on notice to the respondent; to be heard by 3-judge court, one of whom (two if possible) should be a Lord Justice with Chancery/company law experience, time estimate half to one day; costs in the appeal.