O Twelve Baytree Limited, R (On the Application Of) v The Rent Assessment Panel
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE LEWIS
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved Beckett House RTM Co. Ltd. seeking to withdraw its application to acquire the right to manage a building of flats after the claimant had challenged the application. The tribunal initially treated this as a withdrawal ending its jurisdiction, but upon judicial review, it was determined that such a withdrawal does not automatically end proceedings and that the tribunal retains jurisdiction unless it consents to the withdrawal.
Judgment
Mr Justice Lewis:
INTRODUCTION
This claim for judicial review concerns the withdrawal of an application made in connection with the acquisition of the right to manage a building containing self contained flats under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (“ the 2002 Act ”). The issue is whether the communication by the applicant of its intention to withdraw the application is sufficient to effect the withdrawal and to bring about the end of the proceedings or does the withdrawal take effect only when the tribunal consents to the withdrawal so that, until that point, the tribunal continues to have jurisdiction over the matter for the purposes of determining the substantive dispute or ordering costs?
THE FACTS
The facts are not in dispute. The Claimant is the freehold owner of a block of flats at Beckett House, New Road, Brentwood, Essex (“the premises”).
On 1 October 2012, the first Interested Party, Beckett House RTM Co. Ltd., (“the RTM”), served a claim notice seeking to acquire the right to manage the premises with effect from 11 February 2013. The Second Interested Party were the underlesses of the Claimant and played no part in the events in question or these proceedings.
On 12 October 2012 the Claimant served a counter-notice under section 84(1) of the 2002 Act contending that the RTM did not have the right to manage the premises as the building was not a self-contained building nor a self-contained part of a building and, consequently, the provisions governing the acquisition of the right to manage did not arise.
On 10 December 2012, the RTM applied to the leasehold valuation tribunal under section 84(3) of the 2002 Act for a determination that it was entitled to acquire the right to manage the premises.
On 22 December 2010, the tribunal issued directions dealing with service of a statement of case and a reply and exchange of documents (all of those steps were to be completed on various dates before 2 February 2013). On 8 February 2013, the tribunal fixed a hearing for 4 April 2013.
On 2 April 2013, the RTM wrote to the tribunal in the following terms:
“Further to recent correspondence in respect of this matter, we write to confirm that we have now received our client’s instructions to withdraw the Claim Notice, and therefore without causing any disrespect to the Tribunal that the hearing listed for 4 April is cancelled and our client’s application is withdrawn.”
The tribunal treated that communication as a withdrawal of th