Tenants of a block of flats sought enfranchisement. The landlord said the notices were defective in that the office copies supplied did not show the entitlement of the persons giving notice at the relevant time.
Held: The scheme for collective enfranchisement must apply with equal rigour to unregistered and registered land. The consequence of non-compliance with a section 20 notice is that no further initial notice can be given in respect of the same premises for another twelve months. That indicates that the requirement to deduce title is more an administrative or procedural requirement than a requirement to prove conclusively that the tenant has a good title in law as at the relevant date. Less than perfect compliance should not defeat a notice.
Judges:
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Jonathan Parker And Mr Justice Holman
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 996, Times 14-Aug-2003
Links:
Statutes:
Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 20, Leasehold Reform (Collective Enfranchisement and Lease Renewal) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/2407) 2, Land Registration Act 1925 110(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Burman v Mount Cook Land Ltd CA 20-Nov-2001
The tenant occupied a flat under a long lease at a low rent. She was entitled to acquire the freehold on payment of a premium and after following the procedure under the Act. The landlord served a purported counter notice which did not state in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land
Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.184620
