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 one as ‘the whole or a substantial part of the premises in which the flat is contained’. The tenant appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. It was not open to the court to consider some artificial area defined by the landlord. However, it is clear that for the purposes of section 30(1)(f) of the Act of 1954 it is for the landlord to decide what works he wishes to carry out and where.
Lord Scott said: ‘Harry Potter, we are told, received letters addressed to him at ‘The Cupboard under the Stairs, 4 Privet Drive, Little Winging’. ‘The Cupboard under the Stairs’ might have constituted ‘premises’ for the purpose of letters from Hogwarts but for the purposes of construction of the 1993 Act a normal use of the English language must be assumed.’
Lord Carswell said: ‘The landlord must be entitled to possession for the purpose of redevelopment, in the interests both of a fair balance between landlords and tenants in those of a healthy property market and the maintenance of good quality housing stock. I am impelled to agree, however, that to allow the landlord to ‘cherry-pick’ among separate flats, assembling what may be regarded as artificial units, and obtain possession in order to carry out small-scale conversions such as the present would be contrary to the apparent intention behind the legislation. There is likely to be some artificiality and possibly some ambiguity inherent in any construction of section 47, but I am now persuaded that the landlord’s case should not be accepted. ‘
Baroness Hale of Richmond said that by the 1980s, long leaseholds had become an increasingly common form of tenure of flats. The relationship between leaseholders under such leases and the freehold owners was no longer akin to that of an ordinary landlord and tenant relationship. Long leaseholders not only faced what she termed ‘the wasting asset problem’ but might also encounter poor management and high service charges.
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
[2008] UKHL 10, [2008] 2 All ER 303, [2008] 1 EGLR 44, [2008] NPC 13, [2008] 1 P and CR DG25, [2008] 14 EG 102, [2008] 6 EG 131, [2008] 2 P and CR 2, [2008] L and TR 17, [2008] 2 WLR 338
Bailii
Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 47(2)(b)(ii), Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(f)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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’ . .
Mentioned – Metropolitan Water Board v Paine 1907
The context was used showed that ‘premises’ mean land with buildings. Land still vacant on which the owner proposed in the future to erect buildings did not qualify as premises within section 79 of the 1853 Act. . .
Cited – Willingale v Global Grange Ltd CA 13-Mar-2000
The tenants of a block of flats issued a notice wanting to purchase the freehold at a price. The landlord failed to serve the appropriate counter-notice, and the tenants applied to court. The landlord asked the court to exercise its discretion to . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover 1957
Viscount Simonds said: ‘For words, and particularly general words, cannot be read in isolation: their colour and content are derived from their context. So it is that I conceive it to be my right and duty to examine every word of a statute in its . .
Cited – Maunsell 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:
Cited – S Franses Limited v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd SC 5-Dec-2018
The question which arises on this appeal is whether it is open to the landlord to oppose the grant of a new business tenancy if the works which he says that he intends to carry out have no purpose other than to get rid of the tenant and would not be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.264276