In each case all or part of a building was let by a head-lease and then as self-contained units under sub-leases. The head lessees had served notices under the 1993 Act requiring new leases. The freeholder denied that they were qualifying tenants, either because there were a number of flats, or because the lease included other property, commercial premises.
Held: The tenants’ appeals succeeded. Section 101(3) referred to a building which include the flat, which suggests that the presence of other elements did not exclude the apartment, and ‘the expression ‘lease’ is apt to include a term of years granted by the freeholder or by someone who himself holds a lease from the freeholder whether directly or not. ‘ Both appellants were qualifying tenants. Nor was it correct to think that Parliament would have wished to exclude intermediate landlords from having the right to apply for a new lease. Though a renewal of part only of a lease of a property might cause some difficulties it was not an absurd result.
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] UKHL 44, [2008] 3 WLR 244, [2009] 1 AC 39, [2008] RVR 236, [2008] L and TR 25, [2008] NPC 75, [2008] 34 EG 94, [2008] 2 EGLR 57, [2008] 2 P and CR 19, [2008] 26 EG 116, [2009] HLR 8, [2008] 4 All ER 382
Bailii, HL
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 46 49(1) 56(1) 57, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 130
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Howard De Walden Estates Ltd and Another v Aggio and others; Earl Cadogan and others v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd CA 24-May-2007
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 . .
Cited – Maurice and Others v Hollow-Ware Products Ltd ChD 15-Mar-2005
The tenants occupied the building under subleases created out of a head lease which also included other land. They served a notice requiring new leases. The landlord objected that this envisaged not the grant of a new lease in substitution of the . .
Cited – Majorstake Ltd v Curtis CA 8-Aug-2006
The tenant had given notice under section 42 requiring a new lease. The landlord said it wished to redevelop the apartment by combining it with a neighbouring one. The issue was as to what constituted ‘any premises in which [Flat 77] is contained’ . .
Cited – Cadogan v McGirk CA 25-Apr-1996
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 . .
Cited – James and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .
Cited – Cadogan Estates Limited v Morris CA 4-Nov-1998
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 . .
Cited – 9 Cornwall Crescent London Ltd v Kensington and Chelsea CA 22-Mar-2005
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 . .
Cited – Gillan, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Another HL 8-Mar-2006
The defendants said that the stop and search powers granted under the 2000 Act were too wide, and infringed their human rights. Each had been stopped when innocently attending demonstrations in London, and had been effectively detained for about . .
Cited by:
Cited – Ackerman and Another v Lay and others (Portman Estate Nominees (One) Ltd) CA 16-Dec-2008
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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Human Rights
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.270384