LRA/149/2006, 13 November 2007. Considers whether a landlord company which claimed to reserve rights for itself after a collective enfranchisement affects the rights offered to nominee purchasers to such extent that it was necessary to include the retained land in the property transfer. The appellant landlord company (U) argued had served a counter notice upon the respondent nominee purchaser (G)'s enfranchisement notice, limiting the extent of the property to be purchased and offering the rights over retained land. The tribunal accepted this notice, but ruled that a yield value of 7% was relevant. U appealed, arguing that a rate of 5% as decided in the Sportelli case (L135153) was appropriate and there was no grounds for deviating from this, and that under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s1(4)(a) the tribunal had no discretion over retention of the land. "Held": G's proposal of the retention of rights created a significant difference in the position obtained by G, so the relevant condition in the Act was not satisfied. The decision to fix the level of yield at the 5% level of the Sportelli case could not be made in an appeal hearing. Appeal dismissed.