header-logo header-logo

05 May 2017 / Winston Jacob
Issue: 7744 / Categories: Features , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Error message

nlj_7744_jacob

Tenants seeking to exercise the right to manage will welcome the Court of Appeal’s recent decision on procedural non-compliance, says Winston Jacob

  • The primary objective of the right to manage legislation is to enable an RTM company, simply and cheaply, to acquire the right to manage, and to avoid both duplication of effort and administrative untidiness once it has been acquired.
  • Where an RTM company has failed to comply with the statutory notice requirements, the court’s focus must be on whether Parliament intended that a landlord (or other person entitled to serve a counter-notice) could successfully contend that the defect in the relevant notice was fatal to its validity.
  • A failure by an RTM company to comply precisely with the requirements for a notice of intention to participate does not automatically invalidate all subsequent steps.

Many statutes lay down a procedure for the exercise or acquisition by a person or body of some right conferred by the statute without specifying the consequences of a failure to comply with the procedure. In such cases,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll