Supreme Court: a missed invitation notice does not sink a right to manage claim
In Avon Freeholds v Cresta Court E RTM Company, the Supreme Court ruled on 27 August 2026 that failing to send one leaseholder a notice of invitation to participate does not make a right to manage claim invalid. Landlords can no longer defeat a claim on that procedural slip alone.
What happened
On 27 August 2026 the Supreme Court gave judgment in Avon Freeholds Ltd v Cresta Court E RTM Company Ltd [2026] UKSC 31. The five justices were unanimous, with Lord Briggs giving the judgment.
The right to manage company had not given a notice of invitation to participate to one qualifying leaseholder before serving its claim. The Court of Appeal had held in 2025 that this made the claim notice void. The Supreme Court allowed the RTM company’s appeal: the failure “did not invalidate its application for a transfer of the right to manage”, in the words of its press summary.
The court’s reasons, from the press summary:
- neither section 78(1) nor section 79(2) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 says a breach makes a claim invalid;
- the notice rules exist to protect the leaseholders, so it would be wrong to let a landlord use a breach of them to defeat the claim;
- the right response to a procedural slip is the court’s discretion under section 107, not automatic invalidity;
- a landlord’s counter-notice can only dispute whether the company meets the substantive conditions for the right to manage, not these procedural steps.
The court also said that comments in its 2024 decision in A1 Properties (Sunderland) v Tudor Studios RTM that pointed the other way were not binding.
What it means for your building
This follows our explainer on the right to manage after the 2024 Act. Until this ruling, a single missed notice could be enough for a landlord to knock out a claim, forcing leaseholders to start again months later and pay the costs. For volunteer-led claims in blocks where it is hard to trace every leaseholder, that was a real risk.
Now a slip of this kind should not, on its own, end the claim. It still matters: a leaseholder who should have been invited may be able to ask the court to make an order, and every claim is decided on its own facts.
What to do now
- If your block is preparing a claim, still serve a notice of invitation to participate on every qualifying leaseholder who is not a member, and keep proof of service.
- If your claim was defeated on this point after the Court of Appeal’s 2025 decision, you may want to take advice on whether to start a fresh claim.
- If you are already running the building through an RTM company, keep the membership register and the notices on file.
This is general information, not legal advice. Read the judgment, or speak to LEASE or a solicitor, before relying on it for your claim.
How Freeholdpilot helps
Freeholdpilot can run the campaign: an eligibility check, a sign-up list for members, notices from templates and a timetable of deadlines, with a record of who was served and when.
Questions
Does this mean RTM companies can skip the notice of invitation to participate?
No. The notice is still a legal requirement under section 78 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and it protects leaseholders who are not yet members. The ruling is about what happens after a mistake, not permission to make one.
What can a landlord do now if a notice was missed?
The Supreme Court said the remedy lies with the court under section 107 of the 2002 Act, which lets it decide what should follow from a breach. A landlord can no longer use a counter-notice to object on these procedural grounds alone.
Does it apply to our claim in Wales?
The right to manage rules in the 2002 Act apply in England and Wales, so the ruling applies in both.
Sources
This is general information about the law in England and Wales unless it says otherwise, not legal advice for your building. For advice, speak to a solicitor or ask us to introduce one of our partner firms.
