• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • DCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • Fleecehold
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Grenfell cladding
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance scams
    • IRPM
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • OFT / CMA
    • Park Homes
    • Persimmon
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Peverel
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Sean Powell
    • RTM
    • SFO
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • DCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • Fleecehold
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Grenfell cladding
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance scams
      • IRPM
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • OFT / CMA
      • Park Homes
      • Persimmon
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Peverel
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Sean Powell
      • RTM
      • SFO
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / News / Supreme Court ruling on Daejan v Benson gives freeholders the whip-hand and is ‘a judgment that tenants might consider disappointing’

Supreme Court ruling on Daejan v Benson gives freeholders the whip-hand and is ‘a judgment that tenants might consider disappointing’

March 8, 2013 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

Philip Rainey, QC, represented ordinary leaseholders in a reputation-enhancing case
Philip Rainey, QC, represented ordinary leaseholders in a reputation-enhancing case

The lawyers representing the leaseholders in the Daejan v Benson Supreme Court case earlier this week have given their analysis of the case.

Philip Rainey, QC, and colleagues at Tanfield Chambers, represented leaseholders at Queens Mansions, Muswell Hill, in north London, who had not been properly consulted on £280,000 of major works.

The freeholder, Daejan, part of the Freshwater group, had not provided full details of one of the shortlisted contractors tendering for the works.

In a majority ruling earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled that the procedure for consulting the leaseholders was less the issue than the degree to which they suffered ‘prejudice’ as a result of the procedures not being carried out correctly.

“Consultation is a means to an end not an end in itself,” write the Tanfield barristers.

“It appears therefore that it does not matter whether the breach is serious or technical, minor or an excusable oversight, save in relation to the prejudice it causes.  In a stark departure from the judgment of the minority (Lord Hope and Lord Wilson), the majority (Lord Neuberger (giving the lead judgment), Lord Clarke and Lord Sumption) ruled that the conduct of the landlord is irrelevant no matter how flagrantly it might have behaved in failing to adhere to the consultation requirements, unless it can be shown that the conduct caused actual prejudice.

“In this regard Lord Wilson described the conclusion of the majority as, subverting the intention of Parliament.

“It appears that the approach to prejudice can now be characterised as a “but for” test.  The factual burden rests squarely on the tenants’ shoulders to establish (i) what steps or action they would have taken “but for” the breach; and (ii) in what way their s.19 rights have been prejudiced as a consequence of that lost opportunity.

“So if for example, a tenant is able to show that had he been invited to nominate a contractor at stage 1 he would have nominated a particular contactor who could have undertaken the work at a lower cost to that of the landlord’s appointed contractor, the tenant will have established prejudice.  It appears from Lord Neuberger’s judgment that prejudice falls to be measured at the date of the breach.

“In a judgment that tenants might consider disappointing, the majority of the Court has found that whilst decisions as to service charge expenditure remain in the hands of the landlord, transparency and accountability have no part in the consultation process in so far as they might be considered appropriate ends in themselves.“

Although the Daejan v Benson case was lost, Freshwater had to cut  its bill by £50,000 … and was left to pay its own legal costs, which would have amounted to hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Rainey represented the leaseholds pro bono, or ‘for free’ in ordinary language.

The full Tanfield Chambers’ analysis of Daejan v Benson can be read here

Related posts:

Default ThumbnailLord Neuberger: what have you done, as Daejan is cited in property tribunals Default ThumbnailShouldn’t this case have been dealt with by a more senior court than the ‘low-cost’ property tribunal? Default ThumbnailDaejan v Benson: ‘on the whole good for landlords’ Default ThumbnailEpic leasehold battle ends with victory of freeholder in the Supreme Court Default ThumbnailCouncil’s section 106 is delaying the hand-over of residents’ management companies, Countrywide tells leaseholder in complaints ruling

Category: Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, News, Philip Rainey QCTag: Daejan v Benson, Philip Rainey QC, Supreme Court

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold
Previous Post: « Epic leasehold battle ends with victory of freeholder in the Supreme Court
Next Post: Daejan v Benson: ‘on the whole good for landlords’ »

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Leasehold Law logo

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data
  • LKP Site Map

Categories

  • News
  • Grenfell cladding
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
3rd Floor
65 Clifton Street
London EC2A 4JE

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

martin.boyd@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2022 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
Website by Callia Web