Pearlman v Keepers and Governors of Harrow School [1979] QB 56

A long leaseholder wanted to acquire the freehold of his London house under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The house’s rateable value was above the relevant threshold, but he argued that the value attributable to improvements should be disregarded under the statutory scheme. He had installed extensive central heating involving pipework, radiators and alterations through the building. The county court held that the works did not amount to the required structural alteration or addition. The legislation made its determination final and conclusive. The tenant sought judicial review, raising both the interpretation of the improvement provision and the supervisory court’s jurisdiction.

Could the county court’s erroneous interpretation of structural alteration be corrected by judicial review despite the statutory finality provisions governing its determination?

The Court of Appeal allowed the tenant’s appeal by a majority. The judges agreed that the heating works fell within the relevant description, but differed on the availability of review. Lord Denning MR treated the legal error as one which could be corrected notwithstanding the finality provision, and Eveleigh LJ also supported intervention on jurisdictional grounds. Geoffrey Lane LJ dissented because he considered the county court had answered a question within its jurisdiction, although incorrectly. The majority quashed the determination and remitted the remaining matters. The decision therefore concerns the distinction between an erroneous determination and one protected from supervisory review, not simply whether heating improves a house.

Pearlman illustrates the majority’s willingness to treat an error of law as reviewable despite statutory language making a county court determination final. Geoffrey Lane LJ’s dissent preserved a distinction between an error within jurisdiction and acting beyond the court’s authorised inquiry.

The case belongs primarily in judicial review, although the underlying dispute concerned leasehold enfranchisement. It exposes competing approaches to jurisdictional error and ouster language. Its historical statutory setting and divided reasoning matter: Lord Denning’s broad formulation should not be presented as a complete account of every modern restriction on judicial review. A student should identify the court, the relevant legislation and the precise asserted error before deciding whether review is available.