Click the case name for better results:

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 resisted on the basis that there was more than one building as required by … Continue reading Malekshad v Howard De Walden Estates Limited: CA 23 May 2001

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.’ Judges: Stephenson LJ Citations: [1973] 1 WLR 845 Statutes: Leasehold Reform Act 1967 2(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Doubted – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL 5-Dec-2002 A house and an adjoining building had … Continue reading Parsons v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity: CA 1973

Parsons v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity; Parson v Gage: HL 1974

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 … Continue reading Parsons v Trustees of Henry Smith’s Charity; Parson v Gage: HL 1974

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 the Act. The Act also provided that where a property had been divided in such a way … Continue reading Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited: HL 5 Dec 2002

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