Cawsand Fort Management Company Ltd v Stafford & Ors

Under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, a manager’s functions must have a causal link or nexus with qualifying premises containing two or more flats. The functions are not confined to the building or its curtilage. They may extend to amenity land or other parts of a servient tenement where tenants’ rights over that land relate to the qualifying premises.

The tribunal must decide which functions connected with management the manager should perform. Those functions may include repair, maintenance and improvement. If an order confers powers extending beyond what is reasonably necessary in relation to the qualifying premises, the appropriate course is an application to vary the order under section 24(9).

Long leaseholders of flats at The Fort applied to the Southern Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for the appointment of a manager under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The freehold owner accepted the appointment in principle but contended that the manager’s powers had to be confined to the buildings containing the flats and their curtilages.

The tribunal appointed a manager whose functions extended to amenity land and other land outside those buildings and curtilages. The Lands Tribunal dismissed the owner’s appeal. The owner appealed on the ground that the order exceeded the jurisdiction conferred by sections 21 and 24. The central issue was whether functions performed “in relation to” qualifying premises could extend to other land over which the leaseholders enjoyed rights.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Mummery LJ, with whom David Richards J and Sir Paul Kennedy agreed, held that neither the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal nor the Lands Tribunal had made an error of law.
2. Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 requires a four-step inquiry: whether the applicant is entitled to apply under section 21; whether the tribunal should exercise its discretion to appoint a manager; the extent of the property over which it may appoint the manager; and the management functions that the manager should perform. The leaseholders were tenants of flats in buildings containing two or more flats and were therefore entitled to apply. The propriety of appointing a manager was not disputed.
3. Section 24(1) authorises the appointment of a manager to carry out functions “in relation to” qualifying premises. Those words require a causal link or nexus between the functions and premises falling within section 21. They do not confine the functions to the building or its curtilage. The tribunal’s power is broader than a power merely to appoint a manager of or over the building.
4. Rights granted over amenity land could accurately be described as rights in relation to the building containing the flats. An order could therefore authorise management functions extending to that land or other parts of a servient tenement. Section 24(11) confirms that management may include repair, maintenance and improvement. The statutory purpose supports a flexible power enabling leaseholders to obtain the management functions which they are entitled to enjoy in relation to their premises.
5. The court rejected the proposed restriction derived from Parts I and III of the 1987 Act. If the particular order conferred powers otherwise than in relation to the qualifying premises, the appropriate procedure was an application to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for variation under section 24(9), rather than an appeal on a point of law.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The freehold owner’s appeal was dismissed unanimously. The court upheld the construction adopted below and found no error of law: [2007] EWCA Civ 1187.
2. Lands Tribunal: On 7 November 2006, the President, Mr George Bartlett QC, dismissed the owner’s appeal from the management order.
3. Southern Leasehold Valuation Tribunal: On 5 October 2005, the tribunal appointed a manager for three years and approved a scheme of management extending to land outside the buildings and their curtilages.