Radical thinking on enfranchisement – Tanfield Chambers

Posted December 9th, 2015 in enfranchisement, housing, landlord & tenant, leases, news, rent by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 3rd December 2015

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Joint ownership and landlords: who serves notice? – Tanfield Chambers

Posted September 4th, 2015 in enfranchisement, landlord & tenant, leases, news, service charges by sally

‘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.’

Full story

Tanfield Chambers, 18th August 2015

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Osman and another v Natt and another – WLR Daily

Posted December 2nd, 2014 in appeals, enfranchisement, landlord & tenant, law reports, leases, notification by sally

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

Posted September 8th, 2014 in compensation, enfranchisement, leases, news, tribunals by sally

‘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.’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 4th September 2014

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Register your s.13 notices – NearlyLegal

Posted August 4th, 2014 in amendments, appeals, enfranchisement, housing, leases, news by sally

‘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.’

Full story

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

Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd (Westbrook Dolphin Square Residential 1 Ltd intervening) [2014] EWHC 2433 (Ch);  [2014] WLR (D)  330

‘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

Helman v Keepers and Governors of the Possessions, Revenues and Goods of the Free Grammar School of John Lyon [2014] EWCA Civ 17; [2014] WLR (D) 20

‘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

Posted September 4th, 2013 in enfranchisement, interest, landlord & tenant, leases, news, tribunals by sally

“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.”

Full story

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

Posted June 21st, 2013 in appeals, enfranchisement, landlord & tenant, law reports, leases, valuation, wills by tracey

Cravecrest Ltd v Trustees of the Will of the Second Duke of Westminster and another: [2013] EWCA Civ 731; [2013] WLR (D) 243

“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

Posted May 15th, 2013 in appeals, enfranchisement, housing, leases, news by sally

“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.”

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 14th May 2013

Source: www.out-law.com

Yet another one…NearlyLegal

Posted May 13th, 2013 in appeals, enfranchisement, housing, leases, news by tracey

“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.”

Full story

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

Posted October 12th, 2012 in enfranchisement, housing, landlord & tenant, law reports, leases by sally

Day v Hosebay Ltd and another; Lexgorge Ltd v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd [2012] UKSC 41; [2012] WLR (D) 271

“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

Posted January 24th, 2012 in appeals, documents, enfranchisement, leases, news by sally

“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

Posted January 24th, 2012 in enfranchisement, leases, news by sally

“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

Posted November 4th, 2011 in assignment, enfranchisement, law reports, leases by tracey

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

Posted October 31st, 2011 in enfranchisement, law reports, leases by sally

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

McHale and another v Cadogan and another (Cadogan Square Ltd intervening) – WLR Daily

Posted January 4th, 2011 in enfranchisement, landlord & tenant, law reports, leases by sally

McHale and another v Cadogan and another (Cadogan Square Ltd intervening) [2010] EWCA Civ 1471; [2010] WLR (D) 345

“Qualifying tenants on exercise of their right to collective enfranchisement wishing to purchase the freehold interest would have their interests valued on the basis that the rights to enfranchisement did not exist.”

WLR Daily, 22nd December 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Portman Estate Nominees (One) Ltd and Another v Ackerman and Another – Times Law Reports

Posted January 15th, 2009 in enfranchisement, law reports, leases by sally

Portman Estate Nominees (One) Ltd and Another v Ackerman and Another

Court of Appeal

“Service of a notice by a tenant seeking to acquire a new lease of a flat had the effect of preserving the position pending determination of the claim and did not provide for continuation of only a part of the lease.”

The Times, 15th January 2009

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Portman Estate Nominees (One) Ltd and another v Ackerman and another – WLR Daily

Posted December 19th, 2008 in enfranchisement, law reports, leases by sally

Portman Estate Nominees (One) Ltd and another v Ackerman and another [2008] EWCA Civ 1428; [2008] WLR (D) 399

The service of a notice by a tenant seeking to acquire a new lease of a flat only had the effect of preserving the position pending determination of the claim and did not provide for continuation of the lease of premises in which the flat was contained.”

WLR Daily, 18th December 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.