Morris v Blackpool Borough Council & Anor
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
- LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Ian Morris appealed against the UT's acceptance that Blackpool Borough Council could charge certain management fees under the lease's terms. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Council, supporting the UT's view that the leases allowed the Council to impose these charges. The court emphasized interpreting lease terms according to the entire document and commercial sense. Though the Court recognized redundancies often exist in legal documents, it rejected Morris's reliance on the presumption against the drafter.
Lady Justice Gloster:
Introduction
This is an appeal by the appellant, Ian Morris ("the appellant"), against the order of HHJ Huskinson ("the judge") sitting in the Upper Tribunal (Land Chamber) (“the UT”) dated 27 August 2013, allowing the appeal brought by Blackpool Borough Council ("the Council") and Blackpool Coastal Housing Ltd, an arms-length management organisation (“the ALMO”), a non-profit making organisation wholly owned by the Council, against the judgment of the Land Valuation Tribunal for the Northern Rent Assessment Panel (“the LVT”).
The issue on the appeal before us was the proper construction of standard leases granted by the Council to its tenants, and, in particular whether it was entitled to charge certain management/administration charges as part of the service charge recoverable under those leases. When granting permission to the appellant to appeal, the UT made it clear that the appeal to this court was restricted to the issue as to the proper construction of the lease and that the appellant had not been granted any permission to appeal the quantification made by the judge of the management charges properly payable.
By an order made on 1 May 2014 Jackson LJ ordered, pursuant to CPR rule 52.9A, that the recoverable costs of each party in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal should be limited to nil and that accordingly each party would bear its costs of the appeal whatever the outcome.
Background
The Council as the local housing authority is the freeholder of almost 6,000 residential properties in the area. Approximately 5,500 of those properties are rented to secure tenants paying weekly or monthly rents. The remainder of those properties, amounting to approximately 401, are held upon long leases at low rent by lessees, who have been enfranchised pursuant to the right to buy legislation. Like the judge I shall refer to such people as "lessees".
The second respondent to the proceedings before the LVT, and the second appellant before the UT, the ALMO, was responsible for the management of all the Council’s tenanted properties. The ALMO was funded through payment of a management fee, pursuant to a management agreement with the Council dated 15 January 2007. It did not appear nor was represented on the appeal before us. It was common ground that its participation in the structure did not affect the legal issues which we have had to decide.
The appellant acquired a residential flat at 42 Molyneux Drive, Blackpool on Lennox