Matthew James Kirk & Anor v The Sheffield Bath Company Limited

An application made before expiry of a tribunal-appointed manager’s term may be determined after expiry. The First-tier Tribunal retains power under section 24(9) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to vary the management order by extending the appointment.

The expiry of the appointment does not itself deprive the tribunal of jurisdiction, particularly where obligations under the order remain outstanding. The tribunal must decide whether a variation is just and convenient and will not recreate the circumstances that led to appointment. Delay in seeking an extension may weigh against relief, but is not fatal. The tribunal may make interlocutory and ancillary directions where justified.

The First-tier Tribunal appointed Mr Kirk manager of a mixed-use building for three years under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Shortly before the appointment expired, Mr Kirk and Mr Sephton applied to extend and vary the management order, including by an interim extension.

The FTT considered the application only after expiry and struck it out. It held that it could not revive an expired order. The appellants appealed with permission, contending that a timely application preserved the FTT’s power to determine it.

The central issue was whether the FTT could vary a management order to prolong the manager’s appointment where the application was made before, but determined after, expiry of the original term.

1. Appeal allowed. The FTT erred in treating itself as lacking jurisdiction to extend the manager’s appointment. An application to vary the order had been made while the appointment remained current, and the subsequent passage of time did not remove the FTT’s power to decide it.

2. Section 24(9) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 contains no restriction on the type of variation available. It therefore permits an extension of the period of a manager’s appointment. Section 24 does not require every appointment to be time-limited.

3. The original management order had not wholly ceased to operate when the three-year appointment ended. The manager’s outstanding duties to report, seek directions concerning unexpended funds, provide accounts and answer queries remained. That feature further undermined the FTT’s characterisation of the application as an attempt to give new life to a wholly expired order.

4. Eaglesham Properties Ltd v Jeffrey [2012] UKUT 157 (LC) concerned an application made only after the interim appointment had lapsed. In that situation, a purported extension would in substance be a new appointment requiring compliance with the preliminary-notice procedure in section 22. That reasoning did not govern an application already before the FTT when the appointment expired.

5. The FTT must now exercise its statutory discretion. Under section 24(9A), it must be satisfied both that variation will not cause a recurrence of the circumstances leading to appointment and that it is just and convenient. The lateness of an application and the practical effects of any gap in management are relevant, but do not create a jurisdictional bar.

6. The application was remitted to the FTT. The Upper Tribunal declined to make an interim extension without current evidence about management of the building, but confirmed that the FTT may make such an interlocutory order if satisfied that it is just and convenient. Its broad ancillary power under section 24(4) may also permit directions concerning management acts undertaken after expiry.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Allowed the appeal and remitted the application to vary the management order for determination.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): On 30 July 2024, struck out the application on the basis that it lacked power to vary an order after the manager’s fixed term had expired.