Morshead Mansions Ltd v Di Marco
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE PATTEN
- LORD JUSTICE LEWISON
- LADY JUSTICE SHARP
Areas of Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellate court considered whether tenants could seek a mandatory injunction in civil courts to enforce landlord obligations under sections 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Mr. Di Marco sought such an injunction to compel Morshead Mansions Ltd to provide summaries of costs and facilities for document inspection. The lower courts were divided on this issue. The HH Judge Hand QC ruled against the civil remedy, whereas Mann J ruled in favor. On appeal, the higher court held that sections 21 and 22 impose criminal but not civil liability unless explicitly provided, and thus allowed the appeal, restoring HH Judge Hand QC's original decision.
Judgment
Lord Justice Lewison:
Introduction
Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 entitles a tenant to require his landlord to supply him with a written summary of costs which will form part of a service charge. If so required the landlord must comply with the request within one month. Section 22 entitles a tenant who has received such a summary to require the landlord to afford him reasonable facilities for inspecting the documents supporting the summary. The landlord must comply with that request within two months. Failure to comply with these obligations without reasonable excuse is a summary offence punishable with a fine. The question raised by this appeal is whether the tenant is entitled to ask a civil court to grant a mandatory injunction to compel the landlord to comply with those obligations. HH Judge Hand QC answered that question “No”; but on appeal Mann J disagreed and answered it “Yes”. His judgment is at [2013] EWHC 1068 (Ch) ; [2013] L & TR 27.
The landlords now appeal. Their appeal was presented by Mr Philip Rainey QC and Mr Edward Hicks. Mr Mark Tempest, appearing pro bono , presented Mr Di Marco’s response.
Sometimes an Act of Parliament makes it clear whether a civil remedy is available in addition to a criminal sanction. For example section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 prohibits harassment. Section 2 creates a criminal offence; and section 3 creates a civil remedy. Conversely sections 2 to 8 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 impose duties on employers, but section 47 (1) (a) makes it clear that there is no civil liability for breach of those duties. Sometimes, as in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988, Parliament creates a civil remedy but imposes no criminal sanction. The problem arises where, as here, the sections in question create a criminal offence, but are silent about the availability of a civil remedy. In such cases, as the judge rightly said, the question is one of interpretation of the statute as a whole.
For the reasons that follow I agree with the decision of HH Judge Hand QC and would allow the appeal.
The relevant facts
Mr Di Marco is the lessee of Flat 2 Morshead Mansions in Maida Vale. The lessor is Morshead Mansions Ltd. One of the terms of Mr Di Marco’s lease required him to take up and retain a share in the landlord company. So the relationship between Mr Di Marco and Morshead Mansions Ltd is twofold: he is both a tenant of the company and a member of the company.
Under