Adriatic Land 5 Limited (Appellant) v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point and another (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0157

Parties

Appellant(s)

Adriatic Land 5 Limited (a company incorporated under the laws of Guernsey)

Respondent(s)

Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government

Issue

Does paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA 2022”) preclude the recovery of legal or professional costs by way of service charge from leaseholders holding a qualifying lease where those costs were incurred before the BSA 2022 came into effect?

Facts

The appellant is the registered freehold proprietor of a 10-storey mixed-use block known as Hippersley Point (the “Building”). The Building contains 32 residential flats held on long leases and a single commercial unit on the ground floor. In 2020, investigations revealed that there were fire safety concerns in the Building. The appellant intended to carry out two schemes of work: the first involved an upgrade to the fire alarm system to mitigate fire risks pending remediation; the second involved the necessary works to remediate defects with the external façade of the block. These two schemes of works were “qualifying works” for the purposes of section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the “LTA 1985”). The appellant made an application to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (“FTT”) for dispensation from the statutory consultation requirements in relation to both sets of works. The FTT granted dispensation and also made an order under section 20C LTA 1985 that the appellant was precluded from recovering its legal costs of the proceedings from leaseholders. Following an invitation to review its decision to make an order under section 20C LTA 1985, the FTT removed referenced to section 20C LTA 1985 and instead granted dispensation subject to a condition that the appellant should be prevented from recovering its costs of the dispensation application from leaseholders (the “Costs Condition”). The FTT refused permission to appeal the Costs Condition. The appellant then sought permission to appeal from the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (“the UT”). In his decision granting permission, Martin Roger KC identified a new point, namely whether paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA 2022”), which had come into force on 28 June 2022, two days prior to the FTT’s reviewed decision, precluded the appellant from recovering the legal or professional costs of the dispensation application from leaseholders holding a qualifying lease by way of service charge. The UT decided that the FTT’s decision to impose the Costs Condition was wrong in law, but that the appellant’s legal costs of the dispensation application were within the scope of paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 BSA 2022 and therefore not recoverable, even though those costs had been incurred prior to the commencement of the BSA 2022. The appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed by a majority. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.