A House Reasonably So Called – Hardwicke Chambers
‘Andy Creer looks at the decision in Jewelcraft Ltd v Pressland [2015] EWCA Civ 1111.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th January 2016
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Category: enfranchisement
A house reasonably so called – New Law Journal
‘Andy Creer looks at the decision in Jewelcraft.’
New Law Journal, 11th December 2015
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
West End Investments (Cowell Group) Ltd v Birchlea Ltd – WLR Daily
West End Investments (Cowell Group) Ltd v Birchlea Ltd [2015] EWHC 3381 (Ch); [2015] WLR (D) 499
‘There must be a significant deviation from the vertical plane for the exception in section 2(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to apply.’
WLR Daily, 27th November 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Radical thinking on enfranchisement – Tanfield Chambers
‘The law of enfranchisement is very complicated. A whole industry has evolved to try to interpret the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (“the 1967 Act”) and the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”) and put them into practice. The cost and frustration to leaseholders of such a convoluted process is considerable.’
Tanfield Chambers, 3rd December 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Joint ownership and landlords: who serves notice? – Tanfield Chambers
‘Joint tenancy has been the only means of ownership of property at law since the Law of Property Act 1925 relegated tenancy in common to equitable ownership only. Despite the 90 years which have elapsed, joint ownership as it impacts on day to day management of residential leasehold property is not always understood. It is not uncommon, on an enfranchisement of a terraced house converted into two flats, for the freehold to be acquired by the two lessees jointly. What then? Must both decide on service charge expenditure together? What happens if one of the two refuses to join in, can the other sue? What if one of the two breaches their lease as leaseholder? These are issues which have often arisen in cases I have dealt with. The answers lie in an analysis of the trust law implications of joint ownership.’
Tanfield Chambers, 18th August 2015
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Osman and another v Natt and another – WLR Daily
Osman and another v Natt and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1520; [2014] WLR (D) 505
‘On its proper interpretation the statutory scheme of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 required the court to hold that a purported notice under section 13 claiming the right to collective enfranchisement was invalid by virtue of the non-compliance with section 13(3)(e) in failing to identify all the qualifying tenants and to state their addresses in the property. The intention of the legislature as to the consequences of non-compliance with the statutory procedure had to be ascertained in the light of the statutory scheme as a whole.’
WLR Daily, 26th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Hedonic regression and relativity – NearlyLegal
‘The question of the use of hedonic regression in the calculation of relativity is, I suspect, not breakfast table conversation for some of our readers even if it would appear that in the bars of Chelsea they talk of nothing else. The Upper Tribunal’s decision in Re: 47 Phillimore Gardens (available on the Upper Tribunal website) is all about exactly that topic and I think it is an important one. I will therefore try to unpack with my apologies to those readers for whom most of this is obvious.’
NearlyLegal, 4th September 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Register your s.13 notices – NearlyLegal
‘The recent decision in Regent Wealth Ltd and others v Wiggins [2014] EWCA Civ 1078 is a clear reminder to practitioners to register notices under s.13, Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.’
NearlyLegal, 3rd August 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Wiggins v Regent Wealth Ltd and others – WLR Daily
Wiggins v Regent Wealth Ltd and others [2014] EWCA Civ 1078; [2014] WLR (D) 352
‘Section 2 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 did not permit exercise of a right to collective enfranchisement in relation to leasehold interests which were not in existence at the date of service of the initial notice under section 13 of the Act, and paragraph 15(2)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Act did not confer power on the court to permit amendment of the initial notice to specify such interests.’
WLR Daily, 30th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd (Westbrook Dolphin Square Residential 1 Ltd intervening) – WLR Daily
‘A “proposed purchase price” contained in a notice by qualifying tenants seeking to exercise a right of enfranchisement for the purposes of section 13(3)(d)(i) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 must be a genuine offer as opposed to a nominal figure.’
WLR Daily, 17th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Helman v Keepers and Governors of the Possessions, Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon – WLR Daily
‘Where the tenant of a long lease became bankrupt, a notice claiming to exercise the right of enfranchisement, pursuant to Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, served in the name of the bankrupt tenant by a receiver, appointed by a sub-chargee of the property, was invalid as by the time the notice was served the tenant was no longer the tenant as his tenancy had vested in his trustee in bankruptcy.’
WLR Daily, 22nd January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Flats less risky – NearlyLegal
“At least less risky for property investors. That is the basis of the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Voyvoda v Grosvenor West End Properties, which we have managed to miss reporting because of the Summer break.”
NearlyLegal, 3rd September 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Cravecrest Ltd v Trustees of the Will of the Second Duke of Westminster and another – WLR Daily
“Where there were intermediate leases which subsisted between the freehold and the leases of the participating tenants and which were to be acquired by the nominee purchaser on the collective enfranchisement, and a single owner of those leases or of those leases and the freehold could realise development value by developing the property for use other than as a building containing separate flats, the hope of realising such development value had to be taken into account in fixing the price to be paid for the intermediate leases.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal dismisses leasehold enfranchisement claim on mixed-use property – OUT-LAW.com
“The Court of Appeal has dismissed a claim for leasehold enfranchisement by the occupiers of a mixed-use property, ruling that the property, part of which had been converted into a flat against the landlord’s wishes, was not a ‘house reasonably so called.”
OUT-LAW.com, 14th May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Yet another one…NearlyLegal
“The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 gives qualifying long leaseholders of houses the right, inter alia, to acquire the freehold. The definition of ‘house’ is quite technical, but, in essence, it turns on whether it could reasonably be called a house (even if it could reasonably be called something else). There is a quite eye-watering amount of law on this issue, most recently Day v Hosebay Ltd; Howard de Walden v Lexgorge [2012] UKSC 41.”
NearlyLegal, 12th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Day v Hosebay Ltd and another Lexgorge Ltd v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd – WLR Daily
“A property built as, and which retained the appearance of, a house but which was being used solely for commercial purposes was not a ‘house … reasonably so called’ for the purposes of section 2(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 so as to give the lessees the right to acquire the freehold compulsorily.”
WLR Daily, 10th October 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Signed, executed and all that! – New Square Chambers
“The decision of the Court of Appeal in Hilmi & Associates Ltd v 20 Pembridge Villas Freehold Ltd [2010] 1 WLR 2750 (CA) highlighted the strict requirements of s 36A of the Companies Act 1985 (and hence the similarly-worded ss 43-47 of the Companies Act 2006 now in force) about companies signing and executing documents. The decision concerns a claim for leasehold enfranchisement, but is of wider importance and is a reminder, assuming that any is required, that statutory notices are very much all or nothing.”
Full story (PDF) see p. 4
New Square Chambers, January 2012
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
Leasehold enfranchisement: busy times – New Square Chambers
“Despite the parlous state of the residential property market, enfranchisement claims continue to exercise courts and tribunals. This article gives a flavour of what has been generating disputes.”
Full story (PDF)
New Square Chambers, January 2012
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
Smith and another v Jafton Properties Ltd – WLR Daily
Smith and another v Jafton Properties Ltd; [2011] EWCA Civ 1251; [2011] WLR (D) 314
“At common law an assignment of part of a leased property by which the leased property was physically severed had the effect that the holder of each severed part had privity of estate with the landlord only in respect of that severed part. In short, as a holder only of part of the land, he was the tenant of that severed part only.”
WLR Daily, 2nd November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Lovat v Hertsmere Borough Council – WLR Daily
Lovat v Hertsmere Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1185; [2011] WLR (D) 306
“In the definition of ‘an excluded tenancy’ for the purposes of the additional right to enfranchisement applicable to tenancies not at a low rent under section 1AA of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the phrase ‘the house which the tenant occupies under the tenancy’ in section 1AA(3)(a) was to be construed as referring solely to the ‘house’ as defined in section 2(1) of the 1967 Act (that is, excluding any grounds); and the term ‘adjoining land’ in section 1AA(3)(b) meant neighbouring land that might, but did not necessarily, touch or physically adjoin the house.”
WLR Daily, 27th October 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
