Indiana Investments Ltd v Taylor
Indiana Investments Ltd v Taylor
- 2004
- Estates Gazette [2004] 50 EG 86, 88-91(6) .
Central London CC, 3 September 2004. Claimant nominee purchaser (I) had served a collective notice of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 on behalf of the residential tenants of two adjoining buildings owned by landlord (T). T contended that enfranchisement was not possible because the aggregation of the non-residential and common parts of the buildings in fact together exceeded 25% of the internal area of the building and T further disputed the proper categorisation of certain areas. "Held": claim allowed. The tenants were entitled to enfranchise as the non-residential proportion was 24.11126%. Common parts and non-residential uses are not aggregated together for the purpose of the 25% proportion under the 1993 Act s4(1)(a). It is only if the non-residential proportion of the aggregate exceeds 25% that the premises cannot be enfranchised and the burden of proof that it is the case falls upon the landlord.
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S4(1)(A)
SMIRK V LYNDALE DEVELOPMENTS LTD
BRITTON V ESTMANCO LTD
RICS CODE OF MEASURING PRACTICE
LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
Central London CC, 3 September 2004. Claimant nominee purchaser (I) had served a collective notice of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 on behalf of the residential tenants of two adjoining buildings owned by landlord (T). T contended that enfranchisement was not possible because the aggregation of the non-residential and common parts of the buildings in fact together exceeded 25% of the internal area of the building and T further disputed the proper categorisation of certain areas. "Held": claim allowed. The tenants were entitled to enfranchise as the non-residential proportion was 24.11126%. Common parts and non-residential uses are not aggregated together for the purpose of the 25% proportion under the 1993 Act s4(1)(a). It is only if the non-residential proportion of the aggregate exceeds 25% that the premises cannot be enfranchised and the burden of proof that it is the case falls upon the landlord.
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S4(1)(A)
SMIRK V LYNDALE DEVELOPMENTS LTD
BRITTON V ESTMANCO LTD
RICS CODE OF MEASURING PRACTICE
LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT