Villatte v 38 Cleveland Square Management Ltd

On an application for permission to pursue a second appeal, the court identified the central question as whether the proposed appeal had real prospects of success. A company-management ground concerning prolonged failure to hold meetings and the absence of effectively appointed directors was sufficiently arguable to justify permission. Procedural unfairness grounds were adjourned for argument on notice. A challenge to costs was not considered arguable where the matter lay within the tribunal’s discretion. The judgment determined permission and case-management issues only, not the merits of the appeal.

Mr Villatte sought permission to appeal against the Lands Tribunal’s dismissal, on 7 February 2002, of his appeal concerning service charges for his flat. The underlying proceedings arose before the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. The proposed appeal raised alleged mismanagement of the landlord company, procedural unfairness, and costs. The application for permission was made approximately two weeks out of time. The central issue was whether permission should be granted, particularly on the company-management ground.

The application was granted only in part.

1. Extension of time. The application was approximately a fortnight late. The court considered the difficulties understandable and granted an extension of time.
2. Permission to appeal. Although the judge had considered disposing of the matter under the second-appeal approach on the basis that there was no important point of practice or principle, or other compelling reason, he concluded that he could not take that course. The relevant question was whether the proposed appeal had real prospects of success.
3. Company-management ground. The argument that the landlord company had been mismanaged was sufficiently arguable. The alleged matters included failure to hold meetings over many years and the absence of effectively appointed directors over that period. Permission to appeal was therefore granted on the company point.
4. Other grounds. The procedural unfairness allegations appeared to have been satisfactorily resolved by the tribunal in the exercise of its discretion. They were adjourned for consideration by the court hearing the matter on notice to the respondent. The proposed appeal on costs was not permitted because costs were a matter for the tribunal’s discretion and no proper argument was presently apparent.
5. Directions. The appeal was directed to a three-judge court, preferably including one or two Lord Justices with Chancery or company-law experience. The costs were costs in the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): extended time, granted permission to appeal on the company-management point, adjourned the procedural unfairness ground for argument on notice, and gave directions for a three-judge hearing.
• Lands Tribunal: dismissed Mr Villatte’s appeal on 7 February 2002.
• Leasehold Valuation Tribunal: the underlying proceedings concerned complaints about service charges for Mr Villatte’s flat; no further decision details or citation are stated.