Ackerman & Anor v Lay & Ors [electronic resource]
Ackerman & Anor v Lay & Ors [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] EWCA Civ 1428, 16 December 2008. A notice served under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 S42 claiming a new lease over a flat in a leasehold property severed the lease of the flat from the lease of the rest of the building. As a result, the Act did not provide for continuation of the lease of the whole property. Appellant tenants (A) appealed against a decision that they were not entitled to buy the freehold of a building that they had purchased from resident landlords (L) under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 S8. A held a long lease of the building that comprised several flats, one of which A occupied. Shortly before their lease expired, they sought a new lease to their flat, which L objected to. A then sought to purchase the whole freehold instead, under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. L defended the enfranchisement claim, saying that S42 was not relevant as the lease of A had already expired before they sought to make the purchase. Held: appeal dismissed. Comments recorded in the lease only applied to the lease of A's flat, not the whole building.
Advanced
LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S2(2)
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S42
MALEKSHAD V HOWARD DE WALDEN ESTATES LTD (NO. 2)
ACKERMAN & ANOR V LAY & ORS
HOWARD DE WALDEN ESTATES LTD V AGGIO & ORS
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWCA Civ 1428, 16 December 2008. A notice served under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 S42 claiming a new lease over a flat in a leasehold property severed the lease of the flat from the lease of the rest of the building. As a result, the Act did not provide for continuation of the lease of the whole property. Appellant tenants (A) appealed against a decision that they were not entitled to buy the freehold of a building that they had purchased from resident landlords (L) under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 S8. A held a long lease of the building that comprised several flats, one of which A occupied. Shortly before their lease expired, they sought a new lease to their flat, which L objected to. A then sought to purchase the whole freehold instead, under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. L defended the enfranchisement claim, saying that S42 was not relevant as the lease of A had already expired before they sought to make the purchase. Held: appeal dismissed. Comments recorded in the lease only applied to the lease of A's flat, not the whole building.
Advanced
LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S2(2)
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S42
MALEKSHAD V HOWARD DE WALDEN ESTATES LTD (NO. 2)
ACKERMAN & ANOR V LAY & ORS
HOWARD DE WALDEN ESTATES LTD V AGGIO & ORS
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954
England and Wales--1543-