Better Intelligent Management Ltd v Phoenix Place Block A RTM Company Ltd & Anor (LANDLORD AND TENANT - RIGHT TO MANAGE - JURISDICTION) [2026] UKUT 257 (LC) (08 July 2026)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal dismissed the freeholder’s appeal and confirmed the First-tier Tribunal’s decision that the two respondent RTM companies were entitled to acquire the right to manage their respective buildings. The appeal turned on jurisdiction: the appellant argued the FTT could not consider the effect of earlier claim notices that had not themselves been referred to it, but the Tribunal rejected that challenge.

Key points

• Parties: Better Intelligent Management Ltd (freeholder/appellant) v Phoenix Place Block A RTM Company Ltd and Phoenix Place Block B RTM Company Ltd (respondents).
• Issue: whether the FTT had jurisdiction to determine the effect of earlier claim notices when deciding entitlement under the second claim notices.
• Holding: appeal dismissed; the FTT’s determination that the respondents were entitled to acquire the right to manage was confirmed.
• Reasoning: the dispute arose under section 81(3) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which was central to the parties’ arguments about whether the earlier notices remained in force.
• Facts bearing on the dispute: the original articles mistakenly defined the premises as the full postal address covering both blocks; the companies later amended their articles and served fresh claim notices.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none apparent on the face of the decision; this is a property-jurisdiction case with no stated sanctions, export-control, or national-security component.

Why it matters

The decision is mainly relevant as a jurisdictional and procedural precedent on how statutory notice sequences are treated when entitlement to manage is contested. It has no direct sanctions or export-control significance, but it illustrates how formal defects in corporate documentation and notice timing can affect control of UK assets.

Implications

For litigation strategy, respondents and freeholders must treat earlier RTM notices as potentially relevant even if later notices are the immediate basis of the application, because the Tribunal accepted it could assess their statutory effect in determining jurisdiction and entitlement. For compliance and transactional risk, the case underscores that errors in RTM company articles and notice drafting can trigger disputes over whether a company was validly constituted and whether later corrective steps are sufficient to restart the statutory process.