Cadogan v Pitts & Anor

In appeals concerning leasehold enfranchisement, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Lands Tribunal’s conclusion based on section 9(1D) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. An appellate court need not enlarge its reasons by addressing a wider alternative approach where that issue is unnecessary to the disposal and the court lacks oral argument or information about its relevance elsewhere. The court may determine an appeal on the papers by a single Lord Justice under section 54(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, where the parties consent and the Master of the Rolls agrees.

These were two appeals by Earl Cadogan from decisions of the Lands Tribunal, presided over by George Bartlett QC, in references LRA/79/2006 and LRA/4/2007 concerning leasehold enfranchisement. One appeal concerned Stephen L Pitts and Yue Wang; the other concerned Atlantic Telecasters Ltd.

In Cadogan v Sportelli [2007] EWCA Civ 1042, the Court of Appeal had considered similar issues and indicated agreement with the tribunal’s conclusion in these cases. The parties jointly invited disposal without oral argument. The central issues were whether the appeals should be dismissed and whether the court should expand its reasons by addressing a wider alternative approach.

The two appeals were dismissed. Earl Cadogan was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs, including the costs of written representations prepared and lodged in the Sportelli appeals. Permission to appeal was refused.

1. The parties jointly submitted that the appeals could be disposed of without oral argument. They consented to determination by a single Lord Justice under section 54(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and the Master of the Rolls agreed to that course.
2. The Court of Appeal had already considered similar leasehold enfranchisement issues in Cadogan v Sportelli [2007] EWCA Civ 1042. In that judgment, the court had indicated agreement with the Lands Tribunal’s conclusion in the present cases. That conclusion provided a sufficient basis for disposing of these appeals.
3. The court declined an invitation to expand the reasons for dismissal by addressing two alternative approaches. The distinction between the tribunal’s reasoning under section 9(1D) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and the wider basis indicated in paragraph 58 of the Sportelli judgment was unnecessary to the decision. The court also lacked the benefit of oral argument and information about the wider approach’s relevance in other cases.
4. The court therefore agreed to the proposed orders dismissing each appeal, making the costs order, and refusing permission to appeal consistently with the refusal in Sportelli.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): in [2007] EWCA Civ 1280, dismissed both appeals, ordered costs against the appellant, and refused permission to appeal.
• Lands Tribunal, President George Bartlett QC: decisions in references LRA/79/2006 and LRA/4/2007 concerning leasehold enfranchisement.