Mallett and Son (Antiques) Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd and another; Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd and another
Mallett and Son (Antiques) Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd and another; Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties Ltd and another
- 2006
- Estates Gazette [2006] 13 EG 140 (CS) (1) Estates Gazette [2006] 26 EG 156 (5) .
CA, 21 March 2006. Considers whether the tenants of two properties should be prevented from acquiring the freeholds on the basis that the properties were not houses within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1967 s2(1). M and B who used the originally residential properties for commercial purposes brought actions in the county court after they were refused their leasehold enfranchisement rights but the judge held that the properties were not houses within the s2(1) meaning of the Act when the notices were served. M and B appealed arguing that both properties had originally been designed for living in and had retained that character or configuration with the freeholders countering that the judge had applied the correct test of whether the properties had been designed for living in at the relevant time. "Held": appeals dismissed. The judge concluded that neither property was a house designed for living in for the purposes of the leasehold enfranchisement provisions of the Act. Under s2(1) of the Act it was necessary to consider whether a property satisfied the definition of house at the time which the notice of the tenant's claim had been served.
MALLETT AND SONS (ANTIQUES) LTD V GROSVENOR WEST END PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER
BOSS HOLDINGS LTD V GROSVENOR WEST END PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER
LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S2(1)
COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 2002
CA, 21 March 2006. Considers whether the tenants of two properties should be prevented from acquiring the freeholds on the basis that the properties were not houses within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1967 s2(1). M and B who used the originally residential properties for commercial purposes brought actions in the county court after they were refused their leasehold enfranchisement rights but the judge held that the properties were not houses within the s2(1) meaning of the Act when the notices were served. M and B appealed arguing that both properties had originally been designed for living in and had retained that character or configuration with the freeholders countering that the judge had applied the correct test of whether the properties had been designed for living in at the relevant time. "Held": appeals dismissed. The judge concluded that neither property was a house designed for living in for the purposes of the leasehold enfranchisement provisions of the Act. Under s2(1) of the Act it was necessary to consider whether a property satisfied the definition of house at the time which the notice of the tenant's claim had been served.
MALLETT AND SONS (ANTIQUES) LTD V GROSVENOR WEST END PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER
BOSS HOLDINGS LTD V GROSVENOR WEST END PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER
LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S2(1)
COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 2002