The Courtyard RTM Co Limited and others (Appellants) v Rockwell (FC103) Limited and another (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0105

Parties

Appellant(s)

(1) THE COURTYARD RTM CO LTD (2) THE STUDIOS RTM CO LTD (3) X1 THE TERRACE RTM CO LIMITED 930

Respondent(s)

GREY GR PARTNERSHIP LIMITED

ROCKWELL (FC103) LTD

Issue

Can premises constitute a “vertical division of the building” for the purpose of the qualifying condition for the right to manage in section 72(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 if part of the premises is physically undivided from the remainder of the building?

Facts

This appeal concerns the ‘right to manage’ (“RTM”) statutory regime. The right to manage was created to give tenants the opportunity to take over, from the landlord, the management of (part of) their building. To acquire a right to manage, tenants must first set up an RTM company, of which the tenants are members. The Appellants are RTM companies claiming the right to manage three blocks of the recently built Plaza Boulevard development in Liverpool. These three blocks are referred to as “The Courtyard”, “The Studios”, and “The Terrace”. The First Respondent is the immediate landlord of the Courtyard and The Studios. The Second Respondent is the immediate landlord of the Terrace. The Second Respondent is the only active respondent to the appeal. Plaza Boulevard was developed in phases. Although the individual blocks are separated from each other, each successive phase is structurally attached to a central podium which spans the area between them. Beneath this concrete podium is a shared car park, extending underneath part of each of the three blocks. Within the basements, the blocks are supported by steel columns. Each Appellant made an application to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination that it was entitled to acquire the right to manage each block. The First-Tier Tribunal held that none of the blocks were vertical divisions of the building, and so none were “self-contained parts of a building” within the RTM legislation. It so determined that none of the Appellants were entitled to acquire the right to manage. In subsequent appeals to the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, it was assumed that the Appellants were claiming a right to manage in respect of each block including the correlating area of the basement car park beneath the footprint of each block. These subsequent appeals were dismissed by the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. The Appellants now seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.