References: [2003] EWCA Civ 545, Gazette 09-May-2003
Links: Bailii
Coram: Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Dyson
Ratio: The tenant sought the right to purchase the freehold reversion. Her landlord resisted saying that the properties were excluded from enfranchisement being divided vertically.
Held: The cases are fact dependent, and earlier precedents must be treated with caution after Malekshad. The words ‘which may reasonably be called a house’ are words of limitation. The buildings in this case were not divided vertically in the manner contemplated by section 2(1)(b). Appeal dismissed
Statutes: Leasehold Reform Act 1987 1 2(1)(b)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Limited HL (House of Lords, Times 06-Dec-02, Bailii, [2002] UKHL 49, [2003] 1 AC 1013, [2002] 3 WLR 1881, [2003] 1 All ER 193, [2002] 50 EGCS 114, [2003] 1 EGLR 151, [2002] NPC 160, [2003] HLR 31, [2003] 1 P and CR DG18, [2003] L and TR 13)
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 – Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes HL ([1982] AC 755)
Tenants sought enfranchisement of their properties, but 75% of building consisted of a shop, and only 25% was living accomodation.
Held: The tenants were entitled to buy the freehold. The question whether a building is a house ‘reasonably so . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 04 April 2019
Ref: 181378
The post Collins v Howard De Walden Estates Limited: CA 16 Apr 2003 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.