‘This appeal concerns two questions of law which have arisen out of the legislation concerned with the collective enfranchisement of leasehold property. The first raises the issue of whether or not the leasehold interest, like the freehold interest, should, for the purpose of ascertaining the marriage value which the statute says has to be shared between those interested in each, be valued in what has been called the ‘no Act world’, ie on the basis that the right to enfranchisement does not exist. That issue has been adjourned to a separate hearing, and this judgment is not concerned with it.
The second issue, with which this judgment is concerned, raises a question about the valuation of a caretaker’s flat in the property subject to enfranchisement. Should it be valued on the basis that it is dedicated to housing a caretaker rent free and thus of little value, or should it be valued on the basis that the tenants (underlessees) of the premises collectively nevertheless have to pay a service charge which is designed to provide compensation for that loss of rent? If it is the former, then the value of the leasehold interest is lower and the marriage value is correspondingly higher; and vice versa.’
Rix LJ said that in interpreting a service charge clause: the court should not ‘bring within the general words of a service charge clause anything which does not clearly belong there’.
Rix, Rimer, Patten LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 14, [2010] HLR 24, [2010] NPC 6, [2010] 14 EG 110, [2010] 4 EG 113, [2010] 1 EGLR 51
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Arnold v Britton and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
Absurdity did not defeat a clear clause
A standard lease of plots on a caravan park, contained a provision which appeared to increase the rent by 10% in each year. The tenants argued that such a substantial increase could not have been intended.
Held: The tenants’ appeal failed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Leading Case
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.393344