In this week’s Legal Update, we report on the recent case of Jamal v London Borough of Enfield [2026] UKUT 104 (LC) in which the Upper Tribunal gave guidance on the approach to timing provisions in leases relating to interim service charges.

Background

The case concerned a leasehold flat at Dover House, Tottenham, held by Dr Jamal, with the respondent local authority as landlord. Under the terms of the lease, the leaseholder was required to pay an estimated or interim service charge (referred to as a “management charge”) in advance of each financial year.

The lease provided that the amount of the management charge was to be notified in writing to the leaseholder prior to the commencement of the financial year, which ran from 1 April each year. The charge was then payable in quarterly instalments throughout the year, with a balancing charge payable at the end of the financial year to reflect the actual costs incurred, where those costs exceeded the interim charges. 

In previous years, the respondent had complied with the above requirements.  However, in 2024, following the implementation of new IT software, the respondent failed to issue the required notice before 1 April. Instead, a notice was issued shortly before 1 July 2024 seeking payment of three quarterly instalments for the remainder of the year.

Dr Jamal disputed liability for the sums demanded on the basis that the contractual requirement for prior notification had not been satisfied. The matter was referred to the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”).

The FTT’s decision

Before the FTT, it was accepted that the respondent had not complied strictly with the terms of the lease in relation to the timing of the notice. 

The respondent’s position was that, notwithstanding this, the management charge remained payable. It argued that the purpose of the clause had been substantially met and that the delay had caused no prejudice to the leaseholder, particularly as the respondent had sought to mitigate the position by adjusting the instalments due.

The FTT accepted this approach. It held that time was not ‘of the essence’ in relation to the notification provision, and that a practical and business like interpretation of the lease did not require strict adherence to the timing requirement in the circumstances.

Accordingly, the FTT concluded that the charges were payable.  

The Upper Tribunal’s decision

Dr Jamal appealed to the Upper Tribunal (“UT”), which allowed the appeal.

The UT held that the obligation to pay interim service charges was expressly conditional upon the landlord providing notice prior to the commencement of the financial year. The Tribunal considered the decision in Kensquare Ltd v Boakye [2021] EWCA Civ 1725 (see our previous Legal Update here), in which the Court of Appeal had addressed similar provisions relating to interim service charges. 

In that context, the Tribunal found that, whilst not all timing provisions in leases will necessarily be treated as essential or ‘of the essence’, the nature of interim service charge regimens meant that the parties were more likely to have intended strict compliance with the timing requirements.

The Tribunal rejected the FTT’s flexible approach. It held that the lease contained no provision permitting late service of the notice, nor any indication that time was not of the essence. The respondent’s administrative difficulties were not relevant to the proper construction of the lease.

As the required notice had not been served prior to 1 April 2024, the condition precedent to liability had not been satisfied. The interim charges were therefore not payable.

Conclusion

This case is a useful reminder of the approach the Tribunal will take when considering service charge provisions in leases, particularly those relating to interim payments. The UT has made clear that, where liability is conditional upon compliance with a specified requirement, such as the service of notice within a defined timeframe, that requirement must be satisfied. This will, of course, depend on the specific wording of the lease in question.

Whilst the landlord in this case retained the ability to recover its costs through the year end balancing mechanism, it was not entitled to recover interim payment where it had failed to comply with the contractual timeframe.

Disclaimer

This Legal Update describes the position in law as at the date of this article and care should be taken to note any subsequent amendments to the position as set out above.  The Legal Update is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of KDL Law or by KDL Law as a whole.