Site icon swarb.co.uk

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: The appeal failed. The words ‘reasonably so called’ are intended to be words of limitation, so as to exclude buildings that would otherwise come within the other parts of the definition. The mere fact that a building might be called something other than ‘a house’ is not sufficient to trigger the exclusion. However there is a clear judicial conensus that a purpose built block of flats cannot reasonably be called ‘a house’.

Neuberger MR, Longmore, Lewison LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 594
Bailii
Leasehold Reform Act 1967
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLake 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 . .
CitedDay 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 . .
CitedMalekshad 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 . .
CitedTandon 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 . .
CitedGrosvenor 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.456513

Exit mobile version