Members of the Orchard Court Residents Association v St Anthony's Homes Ltd

An application to vary or discharge an existing management order under section 24(9) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is a distinct statutory exercise. The tribunal need not reconsider whether the initial-order thresholds in section 24(2) are satisfied. The express conditions in section 24(9A) for applications by relevant persons reinforce that distinction. The tribunal must consider relevant matters and apply the statutory requirement that variation be just and convenient. Extending a manager’s term is not a fresh appointment requiring the section 24(2) criteria. Describing the test as just and equitable does not invalidate the decision where the tribunal also considered convenience. Permission to appeal may be refused without deciding a jurisdictional issue where the proposed appeal has no real prospect of success.

The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal appointed a manager under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 because of disrepair and inadequate management. On the residents’ application under section 24(9), it extended the manager’s appointment for two years and concluded that the variation was just and equitable. The Lands Tribunal refused leave to appeal, holding that section 24(9) did not require the criteria for an initial order under section 24(2) to be satisfied again, although the statutory test was just and convenient. The landlord renewed its application for permission to appeal. The central issue was whether variation of an existing order, particularly extension of a manager’s term, required the initial statutory thresholds to be reconsidered.

Keene LJ delivered the leading judgment, and Carnwath LJ agreed. The Court unanimously refused permission to appeal.

1. Section 24(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 concerns the making of an order where no management order exists. Section 24(9) concerns variation or discharge of an existing order. The deliberate omission from section 24(9) of the criteria appearing in section 24(2), together with the express requirements in section 24(9A) for applications by a relevant person such as a landlord, confirmed that the provisions address different situations.
2. Although the tribunal had to have regard to relevant considerations when exercising its discretion under section 24(9), it did not have to be satisfied that one of the section 24(2) thresholds had been met again. Extending the term of an appointed manager was not a fresh appointment for that purpose. The absence of a time limit on a manager’s initial appointment gave no reason to impose such a requirement on an extension.
3. The tribunal’s reference to the variation being just and equitable, rather than just and convenient, was immaterial. Its decision showed that it had considered convenience as well as justice.
4. The possible jurisdictional issue under section 3(4) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 did not need to be determined because the proposed substantive appeal had no real prospect of success. Carnwath LJ noted that a second appeal to the Court of Appeal would in any event rarely be appropriate, and that the statutory scheme entrusted these matters to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal under the expert supervision of the Lands Tribunal.

Order: Permission to appeal refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 10 July 2003, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused because the proposed substantive appeal had no real prospect of success.
• Lands Tribunal: On 19 March 2003, leave to appeal from the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal’s decision was refused.
• Leasehold Valuation Tribunal: On 31 October 2002, the Tribunal varied the existing management order under section 24(9) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 by extending the manager’s appointment for two years.