ABSTRACT
Lord Wilson described the Supreme Court decision in this case as subverting the intention of Parliament by making it extremely difficult for leaseholders to bar a landlord from dispensing with consultation requirements. In this article I explore more than 100 decisions in the First Tier Property Tribunal finding that almost every application for dispensation results in dispensation being granted, this being unlikely to have been the intention of Parliament which legislated that dispensation could be granted if this was ‘reasonable’. Although it seems that urgency may make dispensation reasonable I find that in some cases the claim of urgency is questionable. I explore options for re-aligning the law (having been cited in Parliament) and returning the FTPT to its former place, or in default of that for creating a fast-track/no-track process by either a Guidance Note or a Pre-Action Protocol for this arguably now pointless procedure.
€ (Westlaw)
C Haward Soper, ‘Daejan Investments Ltd v Benson – Lord Wilson was right’ (2024) 40(4) Construction Law Journal 220-231.
Leave a Reply