The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has rejected the argument that a manager can never be appointed over two buildings, while allowing a landlord's appeal in part against an appointment at Abercorn Place, London.
Key facts
- Who: Leaseholders and landlords of flats, particularly where a leaseholder applies for a tribunal-appointed manager and neighbouring buildings are involved.
- From: Judgment of 24 August 2026
- Source: Lonestar Properties Limited v Laurence Lecacheur & Anor [2026] UKUT 321 (LC)
Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 lets the tenant of a flat apply to the First-tier Tribunal, Property Chamber (FTT) for a manager to be appointed over the premises. In [2026] UKUT 321 (LC), decided on 24 August 2026, Martin Rodger KC, Deputy Chamber President, considered an appeal against such an appointment.
Background
On 22 December 2025 the FTT appointed a manager over Nos. 12 and 14 Abercorn Place, London NW8, on the application of Mr and Mrs Lecacheur, who hold a long lease of a flat in No. 14. The two buildings are part of a longer terrace. Each contains two maisonettes, and a single penthouse flat spans the top floor of both, reached only from No. 12.
Both maisonettes at No. 12 and the penthouse belong to Mr Silkin and Mrs Burianova, who live in them and own 60% of the landlord company, Lonestar Properties Limited. They opposed the application. An earlier FTT decision in 2024 had described Nos. 12 and 14 as separate buildings and held that the No. 14 lessees did not have to contribute to the cost of works to No. 12.
The questions
The FTT gave permission to appeal on two issues: whether it had jurisdiction to appoint a manager over two separate buildings, and whether it properly considered the interests and wishes of Mr Silkin and Mrs Burianova.
The decision
The tribunal held that the argument that the FTT has no jurisdiction to appoint a manager over premises made up of two buildings was "plainly wrong". The appeal was allowed in part.
The reasoning
The legislation allows an application in respect of two or more premises, and allows the tribunal to make an order covering premises more or less extensive than those applied for.
The judge recalled his description, in Invergarry Court Ltd v Connolly [2022] UKUT 209 (LC) at [55], of a management order as "a draconian remedy, which takes away contractual rights and obligations and imposes expense on the parties". Relevant factors include the purpose of the order, whether that purpose could be achieved another way, and whether the application is made by the owners of a minority of the flats while the owners of the majority oppose it.
The tribunal described the FTT's decision as relatively concise, dealing only briefly or not at all with issues of fact and the exercise of discretion. The FTT had not inspected the buildings and did not refer to the photographic evidence. It dismissed the complaints of disrepair in two sentences, focusing on the absence of expert evidence. The tribunal called its decision not to assess the available evidence or to consider the history of delayed works documented in the 2024 decision "a significant omission".
What this means for leaseholders and landlords
- Buildings that are separate are not automatically outside the FTT's power to appoint a manager under Part II of the 1987 Act.
- The tribunal must be satisfied that an order is "just and convenient", and a management order is described as a draconian remedy.
- In this case, the FTT's decision was criticised for not inspecting, not referring to photographs and not considering the history of delayed works.
Sources
- Lonestar Properties Limited v Laurence Lecacheur & Anor [2026] UKUT 321 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 24 August 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/lc/2026/321