The tenants served a notice on the landlord to enfanchise their properties. The landlord’s counter-notice failed to state whether any estate management scheme existed. The tenants said the counter-notice was invalid. Held: The landlord’s appeal succeeded. The paragraph requiring the statement was a directory requirement, and a failure to comply did not invalidate the notice. … Continue reading 7 Strathay Gardens Ltd v Pointstar Shipping and Finance Ltd and Another: CA 15 Dec 2004

‘This case concerns the proper interpretation of certain provisions of that [1993 Act] regime when after a claim to collective enfranchisement has been made and registered, the freeholder grants a 999 year lease of a part of the premises. In a thorough and thoughtful judgment in the Central London County Court, HH Judge Marshall QC … Continue reading Cadogan v Panagopoulos and Another: ChD 15 Mar 2010

The court considered whether the 1993 Act should be construed as expropriatory legislation and therefore was to be read strictly. Held: The Court rejected the submission that the relevant provisions must be strictly construed because the 1993 Act was expropriatory in nature. Millet LJ said: ‘It would, in my opinion, be wrong to disregard the … Continue reading Cadogan v McGirk: CA 25 Apr 1996

The tenant had served a notice to purchase the freehold of the premises at pounds 100.00, a formal nominal figure. The landlord claimed that the notice was invalid. Held: The process was one of compulsory purchase. ‘The tenant is required to specify the premium that he proposes to pay. He did not do so; he … Continue reading Cadogan Estates Limited v Morris: CA 4 Nov 1998

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – common parts – valuation – parking as a potential incidental to vehicular rights of way – right to stop and load as a potential incidental to vehicular rights of way – valuation taking account of this – appeal dismissed – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 … Continue reading Sinclair Garden Investments Ltd v 2 Medina Villas (Hove) Ltd: UTLC 29 May 2012

The claimants sought the enfranchisement of their properties in London. The freeholder claimed the benefit of the resident landlord exemption. Held: To succeed in the defence the freeholder had to establish one continuous interest by ‘the same person’ from the time when the property was converted into flats until the time of the enfranchisement application. … Continue reading Slamon v Planchon: CA 25 Jun 2004

The landlord sought a declaration as to the invalidity of a s42 notice. Citations: [2002] EWCA Civ 790 Links: Bailii Statutes: Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Landlord and Tenant Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.217254

Citations: [2001] EWCA Civ 956, [2001] 25 EGCS 158, [2002] L and TR 10 Links: Bailii Statutes: Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 24 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Landlord and Tenant Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.218257

The landlord challenged the right of the tenants to acquire the freehold. Lessees had been subdivided the apartments and then, without the landlord’s consent, assigned them. The new arrangement had increased the number of qualifying tenancies so as to create a right to enfranchisement. The landlord said this was artificial, and having been done without … Continue reading Smith and Another v Jafton Properties Ltd: CA 2 Nov 2011

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – whether price enhanced by value potentially available from a reconversion of the relevant building into a single house – extent of the additional value potentially realisable from such a reconversion – extent of risks regarding ability to obtain vacant possession and carry out such redevelopment including whether planning … Continue reading 31 Cadogan Square Freehold Ltd v Cadogan: UTLC 16 Sep 2010

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – deferment rate – hope value – collective enfranchisement – 1930s flats in outer London – deferment rate 5% affirmed – hope value of flats of non-participating tenants taken at 10% of marriage value – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Sch 11 Citations: [2009] UKUT 168 (LC) Links: Bailii … Continue reading Culley v Daejan Properties Ltd: UTLC 7 Sep 2009

Judges: Lloyd, Sullivan, Lewison LJJ Citations: [2013] EWCA Civ 90, [2013] 1 WLR 2842, [2013] L and TR 30, [2013] WLR(D) 81, [2013] 2 EGLR 97, [2013] RVR 232, [2013] HLR 25 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Landlord and Tenant Updated: 21 July 2022; … Continue reading Kutchukian v John Lyon’s Charity, Trustees of The: CA 20 Feb 2013

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – flats – value of existing leases affected by interpretation of rent review clauses – meaning of the phrase ‘increased market ground rental value’ – whether Jarrett v Burford Estates [1999] 1 EGLR 181 rightly decided – ground rents chargeable on review – effects on value of existing leases and premiums payable … Continue reading Elmbirch Properties Plc v Schaefer-Tsoropatzadis and Another: LT 2 Mar 2007

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT . . preliminary issues – deferment rate – determination of deferment rate – Arbib v Earl Cadogan considered – deferment rate of 4.75% applied to houses and 5% applied to flats – guidance on this ( hope value – whether hope of releasing share of marriage value relevant in collective enfranchisement – … Continue reading Cadogan and Another v Sportelli and Another: LT 15 Sep 2006

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – houses and flats in central London – appeals heard together regarding deferment rate – no convention that 6% established – absence of market evidence – decisions of LVTs and Lands Tribunal – settlements – financial markets – index-linked gilts – appeals allowed – deferment rates of 4.5%, 4.75% and 6.4% applied … Continue reading Cadogan v Moussaieff: LT 15 Sep 2005

Notices had been served by tenants under the Acts. The properties were on a large estate where the freeholds had been divided and assigned to different bodies, and there were inconsistencies in identifying the landlords. The landlords served a counter-notice but it misidentified the landlord. The landlord appealed a finding that his notice was invalid. … Continue reading Lay and others v Ackerman and Another: CA 4 Mar 2004

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – premiums payable for grant of new leases of flats – marriage value – value of long lease agreed – whether assignments of unextended leases of other flats in same block provide satisfactory evidence of value of existing leases of subject flats – appeal dismissed – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development … Continue reading Collins and Another v Doyle and others: LT 7 Oct 2003

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT- Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s.24 – premium payable for freehold – value of right to receive insurance commissions – value of right to manage. Appeal allowed in part – premium payable for freehold determined at andpound;3,610. Citations: [2000] EWLands LRA – 16 – 1999 Links: Bailii Statutes: Leasehold … Continue reading Phyllis Trading Ltd v 86 Lordship Road Ltd: LT 11 Jan 2000

The tenants offered to purchase the landlord’s freehold for andpound;210. The landlord made a counter offer to sell the freehold at andpound;130,000. The tenants argued that just as their offer had to be realistic, so the landlord’s had to be realistic, in default of which, the landlord having made no counter-proposal, the tenant’s notice was … Continue reading 9 Cornwall Crescent London Ltd v Kensington and Chelsea: CA 22 Mar 2005

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT- hope value- held hope value excluded- Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Sch 6 para 3 – costs. Citations: [2007] EWLands LRA – 25 – 2007 Links: Bailii Jurisdiction: England and Wales Landlord and Tenant Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.262241

Note: ‘In accordance with the well established principles of stare decisis the decisions of a higher court are binding on judges sitting in a lower court. This principle serves the interests of legal certainty: see Broome v. Cassell and Co [1972] AC 1027 at 1054. The needs of litigants and their advisers to know where … Continue reading Howard De Walden Estates Ltd and Another v Aggio and others; Earl Cadogan and others v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd: CA 24 May 2007

LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – collective enfranchisement – whether owner of an intermediate leasehold could withdraw an agreement that the interest was to be acquired by the nominee purchaser – assessment of price – existence of substantial value in ability to develop building back to a single house – whether the assumptions required under Leasehold Reform, Housing … Continue reading Cravecrest Ltd v Duke of Westminster and Others: UTLC 28 Jun 2012

A notice claiming a right to acquire new lease, but which specified a nominal rent when a full rent and premium was clearly expected to be paid, was not a valid notice and would be set aside. Citations: Gazette 25-Nov-1998 Statutes: Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 42 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Landlord … Continue reading Cadogan v Morris: CA 25 Nov 1998

LT LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – whether terms of acquisition other than premium agreed for purposes of Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Schedule 13 para 1 – earlier decision of County Court on application under s 48(3) that no terms agreed – held that issue estoppel arose – terms other than premium agreed at … Continue reading Ellis and Another v Logothetis: LT 5 Dec 2000

Judges: Morgan J Citations: [2007] EWHC 1776 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Landlord and Tenant Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.258414

Jackson LJ [2016] EWCA Civ 256 Bailii Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 England and Wales Landlord and Tenant Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.561607

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – Collective Enfranchisement – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 section 1(4) – landlord’s counternotice offering grant of rights over additional land – counternotice also reserving rights to develop the additional land – construction of the leases regarding extent of lessees’ existing rights and lessor’s existing reservations over additional land … Continue reading Snowball Assets Ltd v Huntsmore House (Freehold) Ltd: UTLC 25 Jun 2015

Service on a solicitor who does not have authority to accept service of the particular notice on behalf of his client is not valid service on that party. [2007] EWCA Civ 388, [2007] L and TR 28 Bailii Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 48 England and Wales … Continue reading Glen International Ltd v Triplerose Ltd: CA 23 Mar 2007

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – costs – whether freeholder can recover costs of managing agent in addition to those of solicitors and valuers in dealing with an enfranchisement notice – appeal allowed – First Tier Tribunal wrongly disallowed managing agents costs on the grounds the work could have been done by the freeholder without considering reasonableness … Continue reading Columbia House Properties (No3) Ltd v Imperial Hall Freehold Ltd: UTLC 3 Feb 2015

The landlords resisted a claim for enfranchisement saying that the appellants were no longer tenants under section 42 of the 1993 Act, the lease having expired. The property was made up of five flats, and was not itself a house. Held: The tenant’s appeal was dismissed. Paragraph 5 of the schedule 12 of the 1993 … Continue reading Ackerman and Another v Lay and others (Portman Estate Nominees (One) Ltd): CA 16 Dec 2008

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – flats and houses in prime central London – development potential – comparables – adjustments – valuation – development hope value – development value on reversion – appeals allowed in part – s. 9(1C) Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and s. 32 and Sch. 6 Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 … Continue reading John Lyon’s Charity v Alamouti: UTLC 28 Apr 2014

The tenant had served a notice under the 2003 Act to acquire a new lease. The landlord in replying that he wished to redevelop the site, sought himself to define the extent of the ‘estate’ to include only the tenant’s apartment and a neighbouring one as ‘the whole or a substantial part of the premises … Continue reading Majorstake Ltd v Curtis: HL 6 Feb 2008

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – flat – effect of covenant to use only as a dwelling for lessee and family – whether sub-letting prohibited – power to vary terms of lease on enfranchisement – Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, s.57(6) – appeal dismissed Martin Rodger QC, DP [2013] UKUT 443 (LC) Bailii Leasehold … Continue reading Burchell v Raj Properties Ltd: UTLC 18 Sep 2013

UTLC LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT – flat – deferment rate – whether Zuckerman addition for management applicable to a well-run block in prime central London – held Zuckerman addition not applicable to such a building or at all Sir Jeremy Sullivan, Senior President and Mr N.J. Rose FRICS [2013] UKUT 0334 (LC) Bailii Leasehold Reform, Housing and … Continue reading Voyvoda v Grosvenor West End Properties and Another: UTLC 25 Jul 2013

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – leasehold enfranchisement – costs – Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, section 60 – absence of client care letter – refusal to admit additional evidence – VAT on . .

The tenant occupied a flat under a long lease at a low rent. She was entitled to acquire the freehold on payment of a premium and after following the procedure under the Act. The landlord served a purported counter notice which did not state in . .

Leasehold Enfranchisement – flat – premium for new lease – relativity – Outer London property – whether FTT wrong to average RICS 2009 graphs for Greater London and England and to exclude most recent Prime Central London graphs – whether FTT . .

The court was asked whether a caretaker’s flat was within the ‘common parts’ of the relevant premises for the purposes of Part I of the 1993 Act. . .