Nailrile Ltd v Cadogan & Ors; Daejan Properties Ltd v Eyre Estate Trustees and others; Lalvani and others v Earl Cadogan and another; Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Kingston and Haunes; UAE Investments Ltd v Alim Investments Ltd and Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 [electronic resource]
Nailrile Ltd v Cadogan & Ors; Daejan Properties Ltd v Eyre Estate Trustees and others; Lalvani and others v Earl Cadogan and another; Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Kingston and Haunes; UAE Investments Ltd v Alim Investments Ltd and Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] EWLands LRA_114_2006, 22 December 2008. The valuation of intermediate leases will be more complex than before. The Lands Tribunal made an interim decision in five conjoined appeals against leasehold valuation tribunal decisions raising issues about the amount payable to the intermediate leaseholder (L) under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Sc.13 where the qualifying tenant (T) exercised his right to the grant of a new lease under the Act. In all cases, the rent payable by L to its landlord, the freeholder (F), exceeded the rent that L would receive from T following the grant of the new lease and the abatement of T's rent to a peppercorn under s56(1). Case raised the issue of how to value a negative income flow. Held: appeals allowed in part. The Lands Tribunal set out the principles to be followed in the valuation of an intermediate leaseholder's interest in a flat pursuant to the Act. The accumulative rate should be the risk-free rate of 2.25% as taken in Sportelli.
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S56(1)
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 SCHED 13
EARL CADOGAN AND ANOTHER V SPORTELLI AND ANOTHER
RAILTRACK PLC AND ANOTHER V GUINNESS LTD
JONES V WROTHAM PARK SETTLED ESTATES
GHAIDAN V GODIN-MENDOZA
ARROWDELL V CONISTON COURT (NORTH) HOVE LTD
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWLands LRA_114_2006, 22 December 2008. The valuation of intermediate leases will be more complex than before. The Lands Tribunal made an interim decision in five conjoined appeals against leasehold valuation tribunal decisions raising issues about the amount payable to the intermediate leaseholder (L) under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Sc.13 where the qualifying tenant (T) exercised his right to the grant of a new lease under the Act. In all cases, the rent payable by L to its landlord, the freeholder (F), exceeded the rent that L would receive from T following the grant of the new lease and the abatement of T's rent to a peppercorn under s56(1). Case raised the issue of how to value a negative income flow. Held: appeals allowed in part. The Lands Tribunal set out the principles to be followed in the valuation of an intermediate leaseholder's interest in a flat pursuant to the Act. The accumulative rate should be the risk-free rate of 2.25% as taken in Sportelli.
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S56(1)
LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 SCHED 13
EARL CADOGAN AND ANOTHER V SPORTELLI AND ANOTHER
RAILTRACK PLC AND ANOTHER V GUINNESS LTD
JONES V WROTHAM PARK SETTLED ESTATES
GHAIDAN V GODIN-MENDOZA
ARROWDELL V CONISTON COURT (NORTH) HOVE LTD
England and Wales--1543-