The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) held on 5 March 2026 that time was of the essence for a council landlord's notice of estimated service charges under one lease, so a notice served after the year began did not make advance payments due.
Key facts
- Who: Dr Rosh Jamal, a long leaseholder in Edmonton, and the London Borough of Enfield, his landlord.
- From: 5 March 2026 (date of judgment)
- Source: Dr Rosh Jamal v London Borough of Enfield [2026] UKUT 104 (LC)
Background
Dr Jamal holds a long lease, granted in 1988, of a flat in Edmonton, London N18. The London Borough of Enfield is his landlord. The appeal came from a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and was decided on written representations by Judge Elizabeth Cooke.
Clause 3(2)(b) of the lease requires the tenant to pay a "management charge", an estimated or interim service charge, in four quarterly instalments in advance. The sum is to be notified in writing "prior to the commencement of the financial year". The financial year runs from 1 April. A balancing charge is payable at the end of the year.
In 2024 the council's notice of the estimated charge was given after 1 April 2024 but before 1 July. The council's practice was to meet the deadline, and it had intended to do so in 2024. It failed because of IT problems.
The question
The single issue was whether time was of the essence for the landlord's notice under clause 3(2)(b) of this lease.
The decision
The Upper Tribunal held that time was of the essence in clause 3(2)(b). The 2024 notice was given after 1 April 2024, so the estimated charges were not payable in advance by Dr Jamal. The judge noted that he will of course have become liable to pay the actual charges after the end of the year.
The reasoning
The judge relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in Kensquare Ltd v Boakye [2021] EWCA Civ 1725. She said each case turns on its own facts and the terms of the lease in question, but that Kensquare is authoritative. In reaching a different conclusion, the First-tier Tribunal needed to say what it was about this lease that compelled that result.
The council argued that it could not meet a strict deadline, because the lease ties the estimate to the previous year's costs. The judge rejected this. The estimate need not match the previous year's spending exactly; it need only refer to charges the landlord would be aware of by the time it gave notice.
The council's IT problems could not be a relevant factor in construing the lease. If the original parties had intended a pragmatic approach, the lease would either have set out circumstances in which notice could be late, or stated that time was not of the essence. The leases in London Borough of Southwark v Akhtar and Stel LLC [2017] UKUT 150 (LC) and London Borough of Southwark v Woelke [2013] UKUT 0349 stated that time was not of the essence, so neither supported the First-tier Tribunal's conclusion.
The judge also pointed to the tenant's covenant to pay the charge "at the times and in the manner specifically mentioned", which she said emphasises the importance of specific timing.
What this means for leaseholders and landlords
The ruling turned on the wording of this lease, and the judge stressed that each case depends on its own facts and the terms of the lease in question. Where a lease requires notice of estimated charges before the financial year begins and does not say that time is not of the essence, this decision shows how the Upper Tribunal approached that wording.
Any party may appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law, with permission.
Sources
- Dr Rosh Jamal v London Borough of Enfield [2026] UKUT 104 (LC), Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 5 March 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/lc/2026/104