Lonestar Properties Limited v Laurence Lecacheur & Anor

An application under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 may cover more than one qualifying premise, including separate buildings, and an applicant need not hold a flat in each. That broad jurisdiction does not make a joint management order appropriate in every case. The tribunal must assess whether the order’s scope is proportionate to the leasehold management tasks and whether a narrower order would achieve the same purpose. Adjoining buildings, shared services or a flat spanning them do not alone establish that they must be managed together.

The First-tier Tribunal appointed a manager over Nos. 12 and 14 Abercorn Place at the request of the respondents, who hold a long lease of a flat at No. 14. The buildings are separate parts of a terrace. Each contains two maisonettes, and a single penthouse flat spans their top floors. The penthouse and both No. 12 maisonettes belong to leaseholders who opposed the appointment and occupy No. 12.

Lonestar, the landlord, appealed the scope of the order, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over separate buildings and had not justified managing both together. The respondents challenged the rejection of other grounds for appointment. The central issues were whether Part II permitted a joint order and whether it was just and convenient to include No. 12.

The appeal was allowed in part. The First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to appoint a manager in relation to Nos. 12 and 14, but its decision to cover both buildings was inadequately reasoned and unjustified.

1. Jurisdiction. Under section 21(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, a building bears its ordinary meaning. Nos. 12 and 14 are separate buildings, but each is also part of the larger terrace. Section 21(4)(b) permits an application concerning two or more premises to which Part II applies; section 24(3) supports the tribunal making an order over premises less extensive than those in the application. The buildings need not be contiguous. Each premise included must, however, meet the statutory condition of containing at least two flats. The Tribunal did not determine whether the internal arrangement at No. 12 still comprised two or more statutory flats.
2. Who may apply. Part II does not require an applicant to hold a flat in every premise included in the application. A single leaseholder may apply for an order concerning any number of qualifying buildings. Whether to make that order remains a matter for the tribunal’s broad discretion.
3. Scope and proportionality. A management order is a serious interference with contractual rights and imposes expense. The Tribunal should consider its purpose, whether that purpose can be achieved by a different route, and whether the order’s scope is proportionate to the tasks tenants are entitled to have performed under their leases. Here, the grounds and repair objectives related principally to No. 14. The leases treated the buildings as separate, their roofs were physically distinct, and shared rights, services and a spanning penthouse did not establish that joint management was necessary. A manager confined to No. 14 could achieve the objective. The failure to assess that narrower scope undermined the decision. The parties’ breakdown in relations and the directors’ conflict of interest did justify a manager for No. 14.
4. Disposal. The manager remains appointed for No. 14, including the part of the penthouse above that building. The parties, consulting the manager, were invited to agree modifications to the order; until a modified order is made, the manager remains responsible for both buildings. The challenge to the manager’s suitability was not pursued. The request for an order under section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 concerning appeal costs remained outstanding, with submissions invited from Lonestar.

1. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): [2026] UKUT 321 (LC) . Appeal allowed in part. The appointment was upheld for No. 14, with the order to be modified to exclude No. 12.
2. First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): decision dated 22 December 2025 appointing a manager over Nos. 12 and 14 Abercorn Place.