Image from Google Jackets

Gaingold Ltd and Devonbrae Ltd v WHRA RTM Company Ltd

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWLands LRX/19/2005, 19 September 2005. Concerns the entitlement of a Right to Manage (RTM) company to acquire the right to manage predominantly residential premises. Appeal by G against the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal's (LVT) determination in favour of W. W had given G notice under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s79(6) to acquire the rights to manage the premises but G served a counter-notice under s84(1) of the 2002 Act that WH was excluded from the right to manage under Sched 6 para 1 of the Act, the exclusion in para 1 applying to premises in which more than 25% of the internal floor is non-residential The LVT having determined in WH's favour gave G the right to appeal as the appeal would raise an important point of statutory interpretation in respect of a relatively new scheme of legislation. "Held": appeal dismissed. There was no justification for ignoring the basement of the premises as residential accommodation and it does not fall to be treated as a non-residential part of the premises. The exclusion in para 1 does not therefore apply.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 132371-2001

[2005] EWLands LRX/19/2005, 19 September 2005. Concerns the entitlement of a Right to Manage (RTM) company to acquire the right to manage predominantly residential premises. Appeal by G against the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal's (LVT) determination in favour of W. W had given G notice under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 s79(6) to acquire the rights to manage the premises but G served a counter-notice under s84(1) of the 2002 Act that WH was excluded from the right to manage under Sched 6 para 1 of the Act, the exclusion in para 1 applying to premises in which more than 25% of the internal floor is non-residential The LVT having determined in WH's favour gave G the right to appeal as the appeal would raise an important point of statutory interpretation in respect of a relatively new scheme of legislation. "Held": appeal dismissed. There was no justification for ignoring the basement of the premises as residential accommodation and it does not fall to be treated as a non-residential part of the premises. The exclusion in para 1 does not therefore apply.