Earl Cadogan & Ors v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd ; Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Aggio and Ors [electronic resource]
Earl Cadogan & Ors v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd ; Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Aggio and Ors [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] UKHL 44. The case turned around whether or not the head lessee of a block of flats was a qualifying tenant for the purpose of claiming a lease extension under the Leasehold, Reform and Urban Development Act 1993 Part 1 Chapter II. In both conjoined cases, a self-contained building converted into several self-contained flats had been let under a lease for sixty five years at ground rent. Each building had common parts included in the relevant headleases, but not under any of the underleases. Some of the flats were vacant. In both cases the head lessee had sought to acquire a new lease from the freeholder under the 1993 Act. Both were rejected on the grounds that the head lessee was not a qualifying tenant. Held: both appeals allowed. A head lessee under a block of flats (non of which was subject to lengthly underleases) was entitled to be a qualifying tenant, irrespective of whether the lessee was a property investor or resident, and irrespective of the nature or extent of other property included in the demise. The appeals were allowed against a previous decision of the Court of Appeal [2007] EWCA Civ 499 (L138460).
EARL CADOGAN AND CADOGAN ESTATES LTD V 26 CADOGAN SQUARE LTD
HOWARD DE WALDEN ESTATES LTD V AGGIO AND ORS
LEASEHOLD, REFORM AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] UKHL 44. The case turned around whether or not the head lessee of a block of flats was a qualifying tenant for the purpose of claiming a lease extension under the Leasehold, Reform and Urban Development Act 1993 Part 1 Chapter II. In both conjoined cases, a self-contained building converted into several self-contained flats had been let under a lease for sixty five years at ground rent. Each building had common parts included in the relevant headleases, but not under any of the underleases. Some of the flats were vacant. In both cases the head lessee had sought to acquire a new lease from the freeholder under the 1993 Act. Both were rejected on the grounds that the head lessee was not a qualifying tenant. Held: both appeals allowed. A head lessee under a block of flats (non of which was subject to lengthly underleases) was entitled to be a qualifying tenant, irrespective of whether the lessee was a property investor or resident, and irrespective of the nature or extent of other property included in the demise. The appeals were allowed against a previous decision of the Court of Appeal [2007] EWCA Civ 499 (L138460).
EARL CADOGAN AND CADOGAN ESTATES LTD V 26 CADOGAN SQUARE LTD
HOWARD DE WALDEN ESTATES LTD V AGGIO AND ORS
LEASEHOLD, REFORM AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
England and Wales--1543-