VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

First-tier Tribunal Discharges Management Order Following Freehold Acquisition

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal discharged a management order after the leaseholder acquired the freehold. This means the management order is no longer needed.

⚖️ Legal holding

A management order can be discharged when the freehold is acquired by the leaseholder.

Topics

Management OrdersFreehold Acquisition

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal discharged a management order as the freehold was acquired by the leaseholder.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Tribunal discharged a management order after the leaseholder acquired the freehold, ruling that the order was no longer necessary. Judge Tildesley presided over the case.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

© CROWN COPYRIGHT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY)

Case Reference

:

CHI/23UE/LVM/2020/0002

Property

:

County Chambers Station Road Gloucester GL 1 1DH

Applicant: [redacted]

[NAME] [EMAIL]

Representative

:

Respondent: [redacted]

[NAME] [EMAIL]

Representative

:

Type of Application

:

Discharge of a Management Order

Tribunal Member(s)

:

Judge Tildesley OBE

Date and venue of CMH

:

Date of Directions

:

5 June 2020

DECISION

2

The Application

1. This an application by Mr [NAME] for the discharge of a the management order appointing him as manager made on 20 November 2018 for a period of two years from 26 November 2018.

2. The ground for the application was that the Management Order was no longer necessary because the leaseholder of the nine flats in the building had acquired the freehold on 22 May 2020.

3. Mr [NAME] explained that during the currency of the order he insured that the landlord’s obligations of insuring the building and maintaining the retained parts were carried out.

4. The Respondent was in full agreement with the Application.

Decision

5. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is no continuing need for a management order and that it is just and convenient it to discharge it from 22 May 2020. The Tribunal expresses its gratitude to Mr [NAME] in fulfilling the role of a Tribunal Appointed Manager.

6. The Tribunal directs Mr [NAME] to wind up the Order by doing the following:

a) Apply to cancel the restriction under the Land Registration Act 2002 against the freehold title.

b) Within 28 days of the date of Order to provide the Tribunal and Respondent with final closing accounts.

c) Transfer any monies held in the account to the Respondent and close the client account.

d) The Manager is entitled to recover his reasonable costs from the Respondent in effecting the wind up of the Order. The claim for reasonable costs when quantified and approved by the Tribunal is enforceable through the County Court.

3 RIGHTS OF APPEAL

1. A person wishing to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) must seek permission to do so by making written application to the First-tier Tribunal at the Regional office which has been dealing with the case. The application must be made by email at rpsouthern.justice.gov.uk

2. The application must arrive at the Tribunal within 28 days after the Tribunal sends to the person making the application written reasons for the decision.

3. If the person wishing to appeal does not comply with the 28 day time limit, the person shall include with the application for permission to appeal a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28 day time limit; the Tribunal will then decide whether to extend time or not to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed.

4. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the Tribunal to which it relates, state the grounds of appeal, and state the result the party making the application is seeking.

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The management order was no longer needed because the leaseholder had bought the freehold of the building.
  • The Tribunal was satisfied that there was no ongoing need for a management order.
  • The respondent fully agreed with the application to discharge the management order.
  • The manager is entitled to recover reasonable costs for winding up the order.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The decision discharged a management order after the leaseholder acquired the freehold.

Who was involved?

The case involved a leaseholder and a manager appointed by the Tribunal.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to discharge the management order because the leaseholder had acquired the freehold, making the order unnecessary.

Which laws or rules were applied?

No specific laws or rules were mentioned in the judgment.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was that the management order was no longer necessary since the leaseholder had acquired the freehold.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was in favour of the person who brought the case.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should consider whether their management order is still necessary if they have acquired the freehold.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify what evidence or documents were considered.

Can a decision like this be appealed?

Decisions like this can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) if permission is granted.

Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?

It is always recommended to seek advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving property management.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.