The tenant gave notice to enfranchise his leasehold property. The landlord resisted saying it had been given after the tenancy had expired and also that it purported to include property not capable of enfranchisement.
Held: A notice which included property not capable of enfranchisement was invalid, but the court had jurisdiction to allow amendment. It was more than a tidying up procedure, but subject to certain conditions it could be allowed. The tenancy continued by virtue of para 3(1), and a notice given during continuance was valid.
Neuberger J
Times 14-Jan-2004, Gazette 22-Jan-2004, [2003] EWHC 3106 (Ch), [2004] 1 WLR 862
Bailii
Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Sch3 3(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Malekshad 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 . .
Cited by:
See also – Malekshad 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 June 2021; Ref: scu.193762
