The tenant sought the right to purchase the freehold reversion. Her landlord resisted saying that the properties were excluded from enfranchisement being divided vertically.
Held: The cases are fact dependent, and earlier precedents must be treated with caution after Malekshad. The words ‘which may reasonably be called a house’ are words of limitation. The buildings in this case were not divided vertically in the manner contemplated by section 2(1)(b). Appeal dismissed
Judges:
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Dyson
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 545, Gazette 09-May-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Leasehold Reform Act 1987 1 2(1)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 – Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes HL 1982
Tenants sought enfranchisement of their properties, but 75% of building consisted of a shop, and only 25% was living accomodation.
Held: The tenants were entitled to buy the freehold. The question whether a building is a house ‘reasonably so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Land
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.181378