Ackerman & Anor v Lay & Ors [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s):- LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S2(2)
- LEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S42
- MALEKSHAD V HOWARD DE WALDEN ESTATES LTD (NO. 2)
- ACKERMAN & ANOR V LAY & ORS
- HOWARD DE WALDEN ESTATES LTD V AGGIO & ORS
- LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954
- England and Wales -- 1543-
- PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Book | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 146365-1001 |
[2008] EWCA Civ 1428, 16 December 2008. A notice served under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 S42 claiming a new lease over a flat in a leasehold property severed the lease of the flat from the lease of the rest of the building. As a result, the Act did not provide for continuation of the lease of the whole property. Appellant tenants (A) appealed against a decision that they were not entitled to buy the freehold of a building that they had purchased from resident landlords (L) under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 S8. A held a long lease of the building that comprised several flats, one of which A occupied. Shortly before their lease expired, they sought a new lease to their flat, which L objected to. A then sought to purchase the whole freehold instead, under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. L defended the enfranchisement claim, saying that S42 was not relevant as the lease of A had already expired before they sought to make the purchase. Held: appeal dismissed. Comments recorded in the lease only applied to the lease of A's flat, not the whole building.