England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LANDS TRIBUNAL
THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BARTLETT QC
LRA/79/2006 and LRA/4/2007

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		04/12/2007

Lord Justice Carnwath :

1. This appeal arises out of decisions made by the Lands Tribunal on issues under the leasehold enfranchisement legislation. In Cadogan v Sportelli [2007] EWCA Civ 1042, this court gave judgment in a number of other cases involving similar issues. At the time of that hearing, permission to appeal had been granted in the present cases. The parties were permitted to make written submissions, which were considered by the court, without prejudice to the hearing in due course of these appeals. In the course of its judgment, the court indicated its view, agreeing with the conclusion of the tribunal in the present cases. It expressed the hope that the parties would take this into account in considering the further progress of these appeals.
2. The parties have now helpfully made a joint submission to the court as to the disposal of these appeals without the need for oral argument. For this purpose they consent to the matter being dealt with by a single Lord Justice under Section 54(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, as amended. The Master of the Rolls has confirmed his agreement to this course being taken in this case.
3. I note the invitation (para 17 of joint submission) that I should expand on the reasons for dismissal of the appeal, having regard to the two alternative approaches explained in paragraphs 8.13 to 8.15 of Mr Johnson QC's skeleton argument dated 7^th November, 2007. Mr Johnson draws a distinction between the reasoning of the tribunal based on Section 9 (1D) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and what he suggests is the wider basis indicated by paragraph 58 of my judgment in Sportelli. However, I am unwilling to take that course in circumstances where it is unnecessary for the decision in these appeals, and where I have not had the benefit of oral argument or information as to how the point might be relevant in other cases.
4. Accordingly, I agree with the proposed order that in each case the appeal should be dismissed and that the appellant should pay the respondent's costs, including the costs of the written representations prepared and lodged in the Sportelli appeals. I also refuse permission to appeal, consistently with the refusal of permission in Sportelli.