Marine Court (St Leonards on Sea) Freeholders Ltd v Rother District Investments Ltd
Marine Court (St Leonards on Sea) Freeholders Ltd v Rother District Investments Ltd
- 2008
- Estates Gazette (0802) 19 January 2008, 148-151(4) .
[2008] 02 EG 148. Considers whether common parts of a mixed-use building, to which tenants do not have access, can be considered as non-residential for the purposes of the leasehold enfranchisement; and whether balconies should be included in the internal floor area. The defendant landlord (R) owned the freehold of a unique art deco building comprised mainly of flats, with shops at ground level. R served a counternotice to the claimant (M)'s collective enfranchisement notice, disputing M's right to acquire the freehold. R contended that "common parts" for the purposes of the Act should hold some residential character and could not include parts available only to the commercial occupiers. Owing to an issue which arose, R also contended that balconies should be included in the overall floor area. These preliminary issues were tried. "Held": Common areas do not, for the purposes of the Act, need to be common to both residential and commercial occupants. M did not show that the esception in s4(1) applied. Parliament had not intended the courts to have to classify each different common part of the building. Determined for M. Only the more open balconies were not to be considered within the internal floor area.
MARINE COURT (ST LEONARDS ON SEA) FREEHOLDERS LTD V ROTHER DISTRICT INVESTMENTS LTD
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 INDIANA INVESTMENTS LTD V TAYLOR
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] 02 EG 148. Considers whether common parts of a mixed-use building, to which tenants do not have access, can be considered as non-residential for the purposes of the leasehold enfranchisement; and whether balconies should be included in the internal floor area. The defendant landlord (R) owned the freehold of a unique art deco building comprised mainly of flats, with shops at ground level. R served a counternotice to the claimant (M)'s collective enfranchisement notice, disputing M's right to acquire the freehold. R contended that "common parts" for the purposes of the Act should hold some residential character and could not include parts available only to the commercial occupiers. Owing to an issue which arose, R also contended that balconies should be included in the overall floor area. These preliminary issues were tried. "Held": Common areas do not, for the purposes of the Act, need to be common to both residential and commercial occupants. M did not show that the esception in s4(1) applied. Parliament had not intended the courts to have to classify each different common part of the building. Determined for M. Only the more open balconies were not to be considered within the internal floor area.
MARINE COURT (ST LEONARDS ON SEA) FREEHOLDERS LTD V ROTHER DISTRICT INVESTMENTS LTD
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 INDIANA INVESTMENTS LTD V TAYLOR
England and Wales--1543-