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 appealed as to whether the properties could properly now be called a house under section 2(1) of the 1967 Act.
Held: The freeholders’ appeals failed. Where a property had been constructed as a dwelling, the court should look not primarily to the current user, but rather to an objective assessment of whether it had been adapted for living in, using its physical appearance and character. On those bases, the properties were houses ‘reasonably so called’ within the Act.
Lord Neuberger doubted the emphasis in Prospect Estates on the importance of user, and suggested that it should be limited to where for example the lease prohibited residential use entirely.
Lord Neuberger MR
[2010] EWCA Civ 748, [2010] WLR (D) 168, [2010] 38 EG 106, [2010] NPC 73, [2010] 1 WLR 2317, [2010] 4 All ER 36
Bailii, WLRD
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 2(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lake v Bennett CA 1970
The building had been constructed in 1869. It was used as a house on three floors with a basement. The ground floor was later used as a shoe repairing shop and then as a betting shop with living accommodation still used for dwelling purposes in the . .
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 . .
Limited – 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 . .
Cited – Cadogan and others v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd, Howard de Walden Estates Limited v Aggio and others HL 25-Jun-2008
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, . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Magnohard Ltd v Cadogan and Another CA 4-May-2012
The parties disputed whether a building was a house ‘reasonably so called’ within the 1987 Act. The instant building was designed or adapted for living in, and was divided horizontally into six flats or maisonettes, and included shops.
Held: . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.420032