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 (ii) Were they houses ‘reasonably so called’?
Held: The appeals were allowed. Neither property at issue was a house within the Act at the time when the notices were served. The decision of the Court of Appeal had not reflected the intentions of Parliament. The phrase ‘designed or adapted for living in’ looks to the identity or function of the building based on its physical characteristics, and the phrase ‘a house reasonably so called’ tied the definition to the primary meaning of ‘house’ as a single residence. The properties in the first appeal, whatever it was called, was used entirely for commercial purposes, and that in the second was used entirely as an office, despite its historic design and use as a house.
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath of Notting Hill JJSC, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
[2012] UKSC 41, [2012] WLR (D) 271, UKSC 2010/0147
SC, Bailii Summary, Bailii, SC Summary
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 2(1), Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Cited – Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1965
The Minister had decided to confirm a CPO of premises which were now alleged not to be a house as was required by the legislation under which the order was made.
Held: The court can interfere if the decision maker has taken into account a . .
Adopted and extended – 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 – 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 – Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 31-Jul-2003
The appellant had applied for and been refused disability living allowance on the basis of being able to carry out certain cooking tasks.
Held: The purpose of the ‘cooking test’ is not to ascertain whether the applicant can survive, or enjoy a . .
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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.464768
