Unrealistic landlords
Language: English Series: New Law Journal ; 155(7181) 17 June 2005, 942-943(2)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Argues that the courts were mistaken in ruling that a leaseholder's failure to propose a realistic premium invalidates a claim notice; as the CA recently held in "9 Cornwall Crescent London Ltd v the Kensington and Chelsea LBC" ([2005] EWCA Civ 324, L129524). Considers the current position of the law on notices, counter-notices and enfranchisement claims. Examines: enfranchisement claims; disputes over the entitlement to acquire; realistic premiums; applications where the landlord fails to serve a counter-notice; and the validity of counter-notices. Questions whether an unrealistic premium invalidates a counter-notice and concludes that it is a pity that arguments are continuing over the validity of leaseholder's notices where the dispute is over price payable not over the leaseholder's entitlement to exercise rights or not.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L130215 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 130215-1001 |
Argues that the courts were mistaken in ruling that a leaseholder's failure to propose a realistic premium invalidates a claim notice; as the CA recently held in "9 Cornwall Crescent London Ltd v the Kensington and Chelsea LBC" ([2005] EWCA Civ 324, L129524). Considers the current position of the law on notices, counter-notices and enfranchisement claims. Examines: enfranchisement claims; disputes over the entitlement to acquire; realistic premiums; applications where the landlord fails to serve a counter-notice; and the validity of counter-notices. Questions whether an unrealistic premium invalidates a counter-notice and concludes that it is a pity that arguments are continuing over the validity of leaseholder's notices where the dispute is over price payable not over the leaseholder's entitlement to exercise rights or not.