Tenants served notices under the Act requiring information about the disposal of the freehold. The landlords objected that the notices were invalid in failing to give the tenants’ addresses as required under the Act.
Held: The addresses were known or readily available to the landlord, and the notices were not invalid. The court could consider ‘which of the provisions are substantive and which are secondary or ‘machinery’; and in relation to the latter, considering whether they are ‘essential parts of the mechanics or merely supportive of the other provisions’. Here the substantive provisions are those conferring the right to acquire the freehold. The secondary (machinery) provisions include the notice requirements of section 11A itself, and the formal requirements of section 54, including the requirement for the addresses.’
Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Carnwath
 EWCA Civ 1760, Times 17-Feb-2004,  1 WLR 2319
England and Wales
Cited – Kay-Green and Others v Twinsectra Limited CA 15-May-1996
The former landlord had sold a number of buildings, some of which fell within Part I of the 1987 Act. The section 5 notice had not been served. The vendor had also failed to comply with his duty (under s 5(5)) to ‘sever’ the transaction, and sell . .
Cited – Belvedere Court Management Ltd v Frogmore Developments Ltd CA 24-Oct-1995
Landlords had sold flats to Frogmore without serving a section 5 notice under the 1987 Act. Prior to receipt of a purchase notice, Frogmore granted certain leases in the block of flats to another party.
Held: The agreements were upheld, and . .
Cited – Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd CA 20-Nov-2001
The tenant occupied a flat under a long lease at a low rent. She was entitled to acquire the freehold on payment of a premium and after following the procedure under the Act. The landlord served a purported counter notice which did not state in . .
Cited – Speedwell Estates Limited and Covent Garden Group Limited v Jane Rush Dalziel and others CA 31-Jul-2001
Tenants sought to purchase the freehold reversion of their properties under leasehold enfranchisement. The landlord objected that the forms were incomplete and invalid. The tenants accepted that there were defects, but asserted that these were not . .
Cited – Byrnlea Property Investments Ltd v Ramsay CA 1969
It was a requirement under the 1967 Act for the notice of a lessee, seeking to extend his interest under that Act, to indicate whether he was seeking the freehold or an extended lease. The tenant failed to do so.
Held: This failure was fatal. . .
Cited – Howard v Boddington 1877
Cited – Howard v Secretary of State CA 1975
A notice of appeal was given against an enforcement notice, under the Act which required that an appeal should be made by notice in writing to the minister, ‘which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal and state the facts on which it is based’. . .
Cited – 7 Strathay Gardens Ltd v Pointstar Shipping and Finance Ltd and Another CA 15-Dec-2004
The tenants served a notice on the landlord to enfanchise their properties. The landlord’s counter-notice failed to state whether any estate management scheme existed. The tenants said the counter-notice was invalid.
Held: The landlord’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188415