Majorstake Ltd v Curtis: CA 8 Aug 2006

The tenant had given notice under section 42 requiring a new lease. The landlord said it wished to redevelop the apartment by combining it with a neighbouring one. The issue was as to what constituted ‘any premises in which [Flat 77] is contained’ within s47(2)’. The landlord said that the phrase was general and could herefore be read to include only the two apartments within the block.
Held: The landlord’s appeal succeeded. Although it was necessary to construe the section within the Act as a whole, Part I and Part II dealt with different subject matters: ‘it is impossible to attribute any single clear meaning to the word [premises] and that it is necessary to examine the context in which it occurs in each case to understand the particular sense in which it is used . . Chapter II of the Act seeks to strike a balance between the interests of tenants holding under existing long leases to acquire new leases and thereby obtain additional security of tenure and the interests of landlords in developing and renovating their property.’ If Parliament had intended the tenant’s right to acquire a new lease to be defeated only in cases where the landlord intended to redevelop the building as a whole, or a self-contained part of it, that could easily have been achieved by a provision similar to that found in section 3(1)(a). It had not done so.

May LJ, Neuberger LJ, Moore-Bick LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 1171, [2006] BLR 461, [2007] Ch 300, [2006] 3 WLR 1114, [2006] 37 EG 194, [2006] 4 All ER 1326, [2007] HLR 16, [2007] L and TR 7
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 47(2)
England and Wales
CitedBrutus v Cozens HL 19-Jul-1972
The House was asked whether the conduct of the defendant at a tennis match at Wimbledon amounted to using ‘insulting words or behaviour’ whereby a breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned contrary to section 5. He went onto court 2, blew a . .
CitedMaunsell v Olins HL 1975
The House considered whether a sub-tenant could claim protection under the 1968 Act. This depended on the interpretation of the word ‘premises’ in the context of a sub-tenancy of a cottage on a farm let under an agricultural tenancy.
Held: . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMajorstake Ltd v Curtis HL 6-Feb-2008
The tenant had served a notice under the 2003 Act to acquire a new lease. The landlord in replying that he wished to redevelop the site, sought himself to define the extent of the ‘estate’ to include only the tenant’s apartment and a neighbouring . .
CitedCadogan 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, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.244202