Decisions, decisions…

A trio of recent Court of Appeal decisions has brought important clarification – and fresh complexity – to residential leasehold law. Focusing on building safety, the right to manage (RTM) and service charges, these rulings reshape how key legal principles operate in practice and highlight the evolving balance between landlord and leaseholder interests.

Building safety: protection with limits

The court’s interpretation of the Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA), particularly in Adriatic Land 5 Ltd v Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2025] EWCA Civ 856, is likely to have the widest impact. It confirms that leaseholder protections under schedule 8 can apply to some historic costs, even where they arose before the BSA came into force on 28 June 2022.

However, the protection is not absolute. The court adopted a ‘middle ground’ approach, meaning leaseholders are shielded from paying certain outstanding remediation costs, but payments already made are not automatically recoverable.

This nuanced outcome balances competing interests but also leaves room for further legal challenge – particularly given the dissenting judgment and the broader implications for similar provisions across the BSA.

Right to manage: procedure is critical

In Avon Freeholds Ltd (Respondent) v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1016, the court reinforced a strict approach to RTM claims. While confirming that tenants awaiting registration can still qualify, it made clear that procedural compliance is essential.

A failure to serve required notices on all qualifying tenants will invalidate an RTM claim entirely, regardless of whether any real prejudice is caused.

The message for practitioners is clear: even technical missteps can derail claims, making attention to detail crucial in what is already a highly procedural regime.

Service charges: deference to landlords

In Bradley v Abacus Land 4 Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1308, the court emphasised the limited role of tribunals when reviewing service charges. Where leases give landlords discretion, the tribunal’s role is not to substitute its own view, but only to assess whether the decision falls within a reasonable range.

This confirms a relatively high threshold for leaseholders seeking to challenge service charge decisions, even in contentious mixed-use scenarios.

Why read on?

Together, these decisions provide essential guidance but also raise further questions about fairness, risk and future litigation. The full article explores the reasoning, dissent and practical implications in greater depth – key reading for anyone advising in this fast-moving area.

This is a shortened version of a full-length article previously featured in Property in Practice magazine. To read the full article, log in or register, using the links below.