Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd V Poets Chase Freehold Company Ltd [electronic resource]
Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd V Poets Chase Freehold Company Ltd [electronic resource]
- 2007
[2007] EWHC 1776 (Ch), 26 July 2007. The appellant landlord (S) appealed against a decision that tenants in a block of flats were entitled to exercise collective enfranchisement of their lease. The tenants in eight of the twelve flats had served notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s13, naming the respondent (P) as nominee purchaser. S served a counter-notice stating that the notice had not complied with the conditions of s13. The tenants accepted that this was the case and in due course served a second notice under s13. S served a further counter-notice questioning the ability of the tenants to serve a second s13 notice. P issued proceedings contending that as the former notice was invalid it did not prevent the latter notice being issued. The judge accepted P's contentions. "Held": The former notice had not been valid and it was therefore not necessary to serve a notice of withdrawal. The tenants were entitled to submit the latter notice. S could not contend that the tenants were stopped from challenging the validity of the first notice after serving the second notice. Having accepted that the first notice was invalid, it could not be binding. Appeal dismissed.
SINCLAIR GARDENS INVESTMENTS (KENSINGTON) LTD V POETS CHASE FREEHOLD COMPANY LTD
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S13
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
NINE CORNWALL CRESCENT LONDON LTD V KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA LBC
England and Wales--1543-
[2007] EWHC 1776 (Ch), 26 July 2007. The appellant landlord (S) appealed against a decision that tenants in a block of flats were entitled to exercise collective enfranchisement of their lease. The tenants in eight of the twelve flats had served notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s13, naming the respondent (P) as nominee purchaser. S served a counter-notice stating that the notice had not complied with the conditions of s13. The tenants accepted that this was the case and in due course served a second notice under s13. S served a further counter-notice questioning the ability of the tenants to serve a second s13 notice. P issued proceedings contending that as the former notice was invalid it did not prevent the latter notice being issued. The judge accepted P's contentions. "Held": The former notice had not been valid and it was therefore not necessary to serve a notice of withdrawal. The tenants were entitled to submit the latter notice. S could not contend that the tenants were stopped from challenging the validity of the first notice after serving the second notice. Having accepted that the first notice was invalid, it could not be binding. Appeal dismissed.
SINCLAIR GARDENS INVESTMENTS (KENSINGTON) LTD V POETS CHASE FREEHOLD COMPANY LTD
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S13
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
NINE CORNWALL CRESCENT LONDON LTD V KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA LBC
England and Wales--1543-