Cawsand Fort Management Company Ltd v Stafford & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (as amended) grants Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (LVT) jurisdiction to appoint a manager in multi-tenanted buildings to manage premises, including repair and maintenance. In this case, a group of long leaseholders of residential units at a historic building complex ("The Fort") applied to the Southern LVT for appointment of a manager. The freehold owner, Company A, did not oppose the appointment in principle but disputed the extent of the property subject to the manager’s powers. The dispute focused on whether the manager’s powers could extend beyond the buildings and their curtilages to include amenity land and other property under Company A’s freehold but subject to leaseholders’ rights.

The Fort comprises 19th century buildings converted into 30 residential units with a mixture of freehold and leasehold ownership. Leaseholders have rights of access and use of amenity land, which Company A has covenanted to maintain but failed to do so effectively, leading to friction and previous litigation. The LVT initially ruled on the extent of premises relevant to rights of first refusal under Part I of the Act, limiting it to buildings and their curtilages. Subsequently, the LVT appointed a manager with powers extending to land outside the buildings and curtilages, including amenity land.

Company A appealed the LVT’s order, arguing that the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by including land beyond the buildings and curtilages. The Lands Tribunal dismissed the appeal, and Company A was granted permission to appeal to the higher court on the point of law concerning the scope of the LVT’s jurisdiction under Part II of the 1987 Act.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal has jurisdiction under sections 21 and 24 of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to appoint a manager with powers extending beyond the buildings containing flats and their curtilages to include other land such as amenity land over which leaseholders have rights.
2. Whether the manager’s functions can validly be exercised "in relation to" premises to which Part II applies, encompassing land outside the buildings and curtilages.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The LVT’s power to appoint a manager is limited to premises comprising the buildings containing flats and their curtilages, as defined in the LVT’s earlier ruling under section 13 of the 1987 Act.
• The appointment of a manager with powers over amenity land and other property outside the buildings and curtilages was ultra vires (beyond the tribunal’s jurisdiction).
• The LVT order improperly included parts of the freehold over which leaseholders have no rights and even land owned by other freeholders.

Respondents' Arguments

• Section 21 defines the tenant’s right to apply for appointment of a manager in relation to premises containing two or more flats, which applies here.
• Section 24 empowers the LVT to appoint a manager to carry out functions "in relation to" the premises, a broader concept than simply the buildings and their curtilages.
• The manager’s functions legitimately extend to managing rights and land connected to the premises, including amenity land, consistent with the legislative purpose.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework of Part II of the 1987 Act, focusing on sections 21 and 24. Section 21 limits applications for manager appointments to tenants of flats in buildings containing two or more flats. Section 24 empowers the LVT to appoint a manager to carry out functions "in relation to" such premises, including repair, maintenance, and improvement.

The court rejected the appellant’s narrow interpretation that limited the manager’s powers strictly to the buildings and their curtilages. Instead, it emphasised the broader language "in relation to" which allows the manager’s functions to extend to ancillary rights and land connected to the premises, such as amenity land subject to leaseholders’ rights. The court agreed with the Lands Tribunal’s reasoning that managing incorporeal rights necessarily involves managing physical aspects of the servient tenement (e.g., repairing pathways), which may lie outside the immediate curtilage.

The court acknowledged that while the order might extend in some respects beyond what is reasonably necessary, the appropriate remedy is to seek variation of the order from the LVT rather than appeal on points of law. The purpose of Part II is to protect leaseholders’ interests by enabling flexible management arrangements, and the statutory language supports a broad interpretation of the manager’s jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court upheld the decisions of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and the Lands Tribunal, dismissing the appellant’s appeal. The LVT’s appointment of a manager with powers extending beyond the buildings and their curtilages to include amenity land and related rights was held to be within its jurisdiction under Part II of the 1987 Act. The decision affirms a purposive and expansive interpretation of the tribunal’s power to appoint managers "in relation to" premises, consistent with the legislative intent to protect leaseholders in multi-tenanted buildings.

No new precedent beyond the interpretation of the statutory provisions was established. The direct effect is that the existing management order stands unless varied by the LVT upon application.