Piers Harrison and Ceri Edmonds discuss the landmark Supreme Court decision in A1 Properties v Tudor Studios RTM. This case resets the approach of courts to minor procedural errors when attempting to comply with the often complex requirements of property statutes.
1:11 The “old approach”- where there is a question of statutory interpretation, whether the statutory provision is mandatory or directory.
2:02 A change of approach following Soneji. Can Parliament have intended complete invalidity for non-compliance?
2:59 Natt v Osmond – Court of Appeal said property cases were a question of statutory construction so breach always had the same result irrespective.
3:51 Elim Court – the Court of Appeal said there had been a forgivable and immaterial mistake and the claim notice was still valid.
5:18 A1 Properties – explanation of the Supreme Court decision. It looked at the validity of the process following the absence of a notice ie whether there has been prejudice.
8:18 What is the status now of Natt v Osmond?
12:59 Discussion of different factual scenarios and how they are impacted by A1 Properties.
13:15 Scenario 1 – the notice gives insufficient time in the context of the 1993 Act.
14:47 Scenario 2 – late service of a counter-notice.
16:33 Scenario 3 – failure to attach a plan to a claim notice.
17:30 Scenario 4 – failure to set out the prices proposed in the initial notice.
18:47 Scenario 5 – failure to serve an intermediate landlord or third party.
21:12 Scenario 6 – late notice to a third party.
22:14 A1 Properties looked at right to manage not enfranchisement. This is important as there are far more variables in enfranchisement cases.
24:50 The principles established by A1 Properties.
Philip Rainey KC and Mark Loveday acted for the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP) in A1 Properties. You can read more about the case here.
","author_name":"Tanfield"}