The House left open the exact meaning of the phrase ‘material’ in the section noting that whether a part is material is an issue which must be largely factual and one of common sense. The legislative purpose of the rule that divisions of the building horizontally were to be disregarded lay in the difficulty, in relation to units arising by horizontal division, of providing for the enforcement of necessary positive covenants after they became freehold by enfranchisement.
Judges:
Lord Wilberforce
Citations:
[1974] 1 WLR 435
Statutes:
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 2(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Parsons v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity CA 1973
‘Materiality under the section ‘must mean material to the tenant or to his enjoyment of the house.’ . .
Cited by:
Cited – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002
A house and an adjoining building had been first demised under one lease, then separated vertically. Two separate residential properties now existed.
Held: The vertical division meant that the two houses could not be enfranchised as one under . .
Cited – Malekshad v Howard De Walden Estates Limited CA 23-May-2001
The applicant sought the leasehold enfranchisement of two leasehold properties. They were contained in separate leases, but the property had been treated as one for some time. A part of one property extended under part of the other. The claim was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.192024