JLK Ltd v Ezekwe & Ors, Re: Alexander Terrace, Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

JLK Ltd v. Ezekwe & Ors, Re: Alexander Terrace

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Alexander Terrace is a large nineteenth-century building converted in 2012 from a former fire station into 93 units of residential accommodation primarily for students. Most units are bed-sitting rooms with en suite facilities, while six units share communal bathrooms. Each unit is leased on a long lease with rights to use communal kitchens, lounges, showers, and toilets on the same floor. The appellant, Company A, acquired the building from an administrator in 2014. A prohibition order under the Housing Act 2004 was made later that year due to failure of the communal boiler, rendering the building unlawful for residential use. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) had earlier decided that the units were dwellings under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and thus had jurisdiction to determine service charges payable by leaseholders. Company A appealed that decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, for a unit of accommodation to be a dwelling under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it must be used as or intended to be used as someone's home.
If so, whether the units at Alexander Terrace meet that requirement.
Whether each unit is occupied or intended to be occupied as a "separate dwelling," or whether shared communal facilities negate the separateness required for dwelling status under section 38 of the 1985 Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

A dwelling must be someone's home; the units, lacking private cooking and in some cases washing facilities, and requiring use of communal areas under strict regulations, cannot be considered homes.
The fact that the units were unoccupied for much of the relevant period, especially following the prohibition order, supports that they were not dwellings.
The shared use of kitchens, lounges, and other living spaces means the units are not separate dwellings as required by the statute.

Respondents' Arguments

The tenants have rights to use communal facilities, which does not preclude the units from being separate dwellings.
Shared use rights are rights in common and do not negate the status of the units as separate dwellings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Baker v Turner [1950] AC 401	Established that sharing living rooms with landlord or others negates separate dwelling status for Rent Acts protection.	Applied to determine that shared communal living areas at Alexander Terrace mean units are not separate dwellings under the 1985 Act.
Cole v Harris [1945] 1 KB 474	Clarified that sharing of living rooms (including kitchens) prevents premises being a separate dwelling; sharing bathrooms does not.	Supported the principle that sharing kitchens and lounges precludes separate dwelling status.
Horford v Lambert [1976] Ch. 39	Tenancy of multiple units in one house not a tenancy of separate dwelling for rent control purposes.	Referenced in discussion of statutory purpose and definition of dwelling.
King v Udlaw Ltd [2008] L. & T.R. 28	Addressed definition of dwelling under section 38; held protection linked to occupier's home.	Court disagreed with its restrictive interpretation limiting protection to occupier's home under the 1985 Act.
Llewellyn v Hinson [1948] 2 KB 385	Sharing living accommodation with other tenants excludes separate dwelling status.	Supported the principle that sharing living accommodation affects dwelling status.
Morgan v Kenyon (1913) 110 LT 197	Dwelling-houses subject to closing orders remain dwellings despite being unoccupied or uninhabitable.	Referenced regarding the effect of the prohibition order on dwelling status.
Neale v Del Soto [1945] 1 KB 144	Sharing living rooms with landlord negates separate dwelling status.	Formed basis for the rule on separateness of dwellings applied to the case.
Oakfern Properties Ltd v Ruddy [2007] Ch 355	Service charge protections focus on challenging unreasonable charges, not solely on protecting tenants in their homes.	Used to distinguish statutory purpose of 1985 Act from Rent Acts.
Phillips v Francis [2010] L. & T.R. 28	Context-specific meaning of dwelling; holiday chalets held to be dwellings despite non-permanent residential use.	Supported broader interpretation of dwelling under section 38.
R(N) v Lewisham London Borough Council [2014] UKSC 61	Dwelling implies settled occupation and establishment of a home in relevant statutory context.	Considered but distinguished due to different statutory context.
St Andrews Place (Liverpool) RTM Company Ltd v JLK Ltd (unreported, 2016)	Similar student accommodation with shared facilities held not to be separate dwellings under section 112(1), Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.	FTT decision relied upon to support conclusion that Alexander Terrace units are not separate dwellings.
Williams v Perry [1924] 1 KB 936	Purpose of tenancy governs whether premises are separate dwellings, not just physical nature or actual use.	Supported interpretation of 'intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling.'

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the meaning of "dwelling" under section 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in light of statutory language and relevant case law. It rejected the appellant's argument that a dwelling must be someone's home, noting that section 38 requires only that the building or part of a building be "occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling," without an express requirement of residence or home status. The court distinguished the statutory context of the 1985 Act from other legislation (such as the Rent Acts and Housing Act 1988) where occupation as a home is required.

Turning to the issue of separateness, the court applied longstanding principles from Rent Act jurisprudence, particularly the rule that sharing living accommodation such as kitchens or lounges with others negates the status of a separate dwelling. The units at Alexander Terrace share communal kitchens, lounges, and other facilities with other tenants on the same floor, so the tenants do not occupy a separate dwelling. The right to use shared space is insufficient to confer separate dwelling status because the tenant is not the tenant of the whole accommodation, only part of it.

The court found persuasive the First-tier Tribunal's decision in the similar St Andrews Place case, which held that bed-sitting rooms with shared communal living space are not separate dwellings. The court also noted that the prohibition order preventing occupation after April 2014 did not, by itself, negate dwelling status, citing authority that buildings do not cease to be dwellings due to lack of occupation or closure orders.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL on the ground that the units at Alexander Terrace are not occupied or intended to be occupied as separate dwellings within the meaning of section 38 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Consequently, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) does not have jurisdiction to determine the service charge disputes under section 27A of that Act, and the respondents' applications must be dismissed.

This decision directly affects the parties by removing the tribunal's jurisdiction over the service charge disputes in question. No broader precedent altering the statutory interpretation of "dwelling" under the 1985 Act beyond this context was established.