Click the case name for better results:

Henley and Another v Cohen: CA 2 May 2013

Dispute is about the right to enfranchise under the 1967 Act, which was exercisable in specified circumstances where a ‘building’ is subject to a long lease. The landlord said that the two-storey, long lease building in Palmers Green, which has a greetings card shop on the ground floor with a recently converted flat above, was … Continue reading Henley and Another v Cohen: CA 2 May 2013

Malpas v St Ermin’s Property Ltd: CA 1992

Judges: Dillon LJ Citations: [1992] 1 EGLR 109 Statutes: Leasehold Reform Act 1967 2(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales 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 … Continue reading Malpas v St Ermin’s Property Ltd: CA 1992

Boss Holdings Ltd and Another v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd: CA 21 Mar 2006

The tenant served a notice of its desire to purchase the freehold. The landlord objected that the property was no longer a house as required under the Act, having become dilapidated and unoccupied. Held: The nature of the occupancy was to be tested as at the date of the issue of the notice and not … Continue reading Boss Holdings Ltd and Another v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd: CA 21 Mar 2006

Day and Another v Hosebay Ltd: SC 10 Oct 2012

The Court considered the provisions for leasehold enfranchisement now that the residence requirement had been removed by the 2002 Act, and in particular the extent to which, at all, it had allowed enfranchisement to be available to commercial buildings. The properties raised two issues: (i) Were the buildings ‘designed or adapted for living in’? And … Continue reading Day and Another v Hosebay Ltd: SC 10 Oct 2012

Day and Another v Hosebay Ltd; Lexgorge Ltd v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd etc: CA 1 Jul 2010

Properties had been built as substantial single dwellings. Later they had been converted into separate dwellings and let accordingly. The tenants sought to acquire the freeholds under the 1967 Act. Though required by the lease to use the properties as private dwellings, they had been used as short term lets for tourists. The landlord now … Continue reading Day and Another v Hosebay Ltd; Lexgorge Ltd v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd etc: CA 1 Jul 2010

Grosvenor Estates Ltd v Prospect Estates Ltd: CA 21 Nov 2008

The tenant under a long lease sought enfranchisement. The landlord denied that it was a ‘house’ reasonably so called within the 1967 Act. The building had been constructed as a house, but was now substantially used as offices. They could only be used under the lease as to 11.5% for residential purposes, the remainder of … Continue reading Grosvenor Estates Ltd v Prospect Estates Ltd: CA 21 Nov 2008

Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties and others: HL 30 Jan 2008

The tenant sought to enfranchise the property under the 1967 Act. The freeholders replied that it was not a ‘house’ within the Act at the time of the notice. It had been built in the eighteenth century as a house, but the lower floors had been occupied for many years for business purposes. Recently it … Continue reading Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties and others: HL 30 Jan 2008

Duke of Westminster and Others v Birrane: CA 17 Nov 1994

A basement extending under the house next door means that the property with the basement is not a not a dwelling-house for leasehold enfranchisement purposes. The result would create difficulties with flying freeholds. ‘The primary purpose of section 2(2) must have been to exclude from the operation of the Act houses in respect of which … Continue reading Duke of Westminster and Others v Birrane: CA 17 Nov 1994