Leasehold enfranchisement – Determination of terms of lease extension by leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) – Extension of time granted to apply for permission to appeal – Regulation 24 of Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (Procedure)(England) Regulations 2003 – Parties applying for permission to appeal – Appellant’s application made outside extended time limit – Permission granted to both parties – Whether valid permission granted to appellant – Whether LVT having jurisdiction to extend time of own motion – Respondent applying to have appeal dismissed – Application refused
The respondent leaseholder applied to the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT), under section 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, for a determination of the price to be paid for an extended lease and the terms upon which that lease was to be granted. Both the respondent and the appellant landlord requested an extension of the 21-day time limit laid down by regulation 20 of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals (Procedure)(England) Regulations 2003 for applying for permission to appeal against the LVT’s determination. The jurisdiction to extend time was conferred by regulation 24. The LVT granted the extension. Both parties made applications for permission to appeal; the respondent’s application was in time but that of the appellant was made outside the extended time limit. The LVT granted permission to appeal to both parties; it considered that given the nature of the issues raised, it would be wrong to grant permission to one party and not the other, notwithstanding the late receipt of the appellant’s application.
The respondent sought the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal on the ground that no valid permission to appeal had been given since the application for permission had been made out of time. She contended that a party that had missed the deadline for permission to appeal could make such an appeal only if the LVT granted an extension of time; the appellant had not applied for a further time extension. Although possessing the power to extend time of its own motion, the LVT had not done so in the instant case and, in any event, it could not exercise the power in order to condone a failure to comply with regulation 24 at the request and for the benefit of one party.
Decision: The application was refused.
The LVT had the power to extend the time for applying for permission to a party that had requested such permission after the period for applying had lapsed. It could do so of its own motion under regulation 24(1), and did not lose that power merely because the party in question had applied out of time for permission to appeal. Although a party that applied for permission out of time had no right to have its application determined, and the LVT could not be compelled to determine it, if the LVT considered in the exercise of its discretion that permission to appeal out of time should be granted, it had the power to do so: Arrowdell Ltd v Coniston Court (North) Hove Ltd [2007] RVR 39 considered.
The LVT had granted an extension of time to the appellant in the instant case. It could grant permission to appeal only on the application of the party concerned, and where the application was out of time could do so only if the time for applying was extended. By granting permission to appeal, expressly taking into account the fact that the appellant’s application was out of time, the LVT was, by necessary implication, extending time, and it was unnecessary for it to state expressly that it was doing so. Accordingly, the appellant had a valid permission to appeal.
Anthony Radevsky (instructed by Boodle Hatfield) appeared for the appellant; Anthony Tanney (instructed by Farrer & Co and Bircham Dyson Bell) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
