The Courtyard RTM Co Limited & Ors v Rockwell (FC103) Limited & Anor

For a right-to-manage claim, whether premises are a self-contained part of a building under Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, section 72 is a purely physical inquiry. A vertical division need not be marked by a physical separation, a straight boundary, or a line avoiding party walls, foundations and other solid components. Only boundaries connected to the remainder of the building are material.

However, premises cannot be a vertical division where they incorporate an open-plan, undivided area forming part of a shared estate facility. The regime is directed to premises which the RTM company can manage on its own. Independent redevelopment means physical capability to redevelop the part while the remainder is not redeveloped; legal rights, consent and temporary support arrangements are irrelevant.

Two appeals from separate First-tier Tribunal decisions were heard together because both concerned whether claimed premises were a self-contained part of a building for the right to manage.

At Plaza Boulevard in Liverpool, three RTM companies claimed rights over separate residential blocks. Each block extended over part of an open-plan underground car park shared with other blocks and third parties. The FTT held that the blocks were ineligible.

At 14 Park Crescent and its mews in London, the landlord challenged an RTM claim over a redeveloped part of a Regency terrace. It relied on party walls, foundations, movement joints and irregular boundaries. The FTT held that the premises qualified.

The central issues were the meaning of vertical division, independent redevelopment, and independent services under section 72 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

1. Both appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the FTT’s ultimate conclusion that the three Plaza Boulevard blocks were not qualifying premises, and that No.14 Park Crescent and its mews were qualifying premises.

2. Section 72(3)(a) requires the claimed premises, considered as a whole, to be a vertical rather than horizontal division of the larger building. It does not require a physical dividing structure, a perfectly straight line, or a line which avoids intersecting a party wall, foundation or basement slab. A notional boundary may pass through solid structures. Nor are projections unconnected to the remainder of the building, such as balconies over public land or a projecting step, material. The FTT’s contrary reasoning concerning the continuous basement slab at Plaza Boulevard was wrong.

3. Nevertheless, the Plaza Boulevard claims failed. Each block had to include part of the basement car park to avoid an overhang, but that car park was open-plan, undivided and used by occupants of other blocks and third parties. A line drawn only on a plan could not convert that shared space into a vertical division. Dividing management of that practical common facility between the landlords and several RTM companies was inconsistent with the principle in FirstPort Property Services Ltd v Settlers Court RTM Co Ltd [2022] UKSC 1 that an RTM company manages premises it can manage on its own.

4. For section 72(3)(b), independent redevelopment is a physical test. The relevant question is whether the structure allows redevelopment of the claimed part while the remainder is not redeveloped. It does not ask whether the RTM company has a right to redevelop, can obtain consent, or must use temporary support. No.14 could be redeveloped independently despite its party structures; similarly, the Plaza Boulevard blocks met this limb.

5. The FTT was entitled to find that the linked fire-alarm system serving The Studios and The Tower could be separated without significant interruption. A fire alarm is a relevant service supplied by a fixed installation. The original independent panels, temporary networking, prior separations, absence of evidence of disruption, and engineer’s evidence that the link could easily be removed supported that finding.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): Both appeals from the FTT were dismissed in [2025] UKUT 39 (LC).
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): The Plaza Boulevard decision, published on 2 May 2024, rejected the RTM claims. The Park Crescent decision, handed down on 18 July 2024, upheld the RTM claim.