Sharpe and others v Duke Street Securities NV
Sharpe and others v Duke Street Securities NV
- 1987
- Estates Gazette 283(6353) 26 September 1987, 1558-1562(3) .
CA 9 June 1987. Appeal by the landlords from a decision in the County Court in favour of the tenants, who were granted an application for a declaration of entitlement to acquire the freehold of a house under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 . The case concerned the meaning of the word "house" under the Act. The building had been built as two separate maisonettes one on the ground and one on the first floor. When the maisonettes came under the same leasehold ownership, the owner put a door in the downstairs wall and occupied both maisonettes as his residence. After he had occupied the property for three years, he gave notice under the Act that he wished to purchase the freehold. The owner died suddenly and proceedings were brought by his representatives, seeking a declaration that they were entitled to acquire the freehold, to which the County Court judge agreed, holding that it was a house within the definition set down in Part I Leasehold Reform Act 1967 S2(1). On appeal, it was submit
LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
CA 9 June 1987. Appeal by the landlords from a decision in the County Court in favour of the tenants, who were granted an application for a declaration of entitlement to acquire the freehold of a house under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 . The case concerned the meaning of the word "house" under the Act. The building had been built as two separate maisonettes one on the ground and one on the first floor. When the maisonettes came under the same leasehold ownership, the owner put a door in the downstairs wall and occupied both maisonettes as his residence. After he had occupied the property for three years, he gave notice under the Act that he wished to purchase the freehold. The owner died suddenly and proceedings were brought by his representatives, seeking a declaration that they were entitled to acquire the freehold, to which the County Court judge agreed, holding that it was a house within the definition set down in Part I Leasehold Reform Act 1967 S2(1). On appeal, it was submit
LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT