[2004] EWCA Civ 969, 27 July 2004. Appeal by S, whose lease related to a number of flats that it had sub-let on short-term tenancies, against a declaration that it was not entitled to enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s1. S was by common agreement both the qualifying tenant for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Part I and the tenant of the house wherein the flats were situated. S contended that the rejection of its right to enfranchise because it was a company and thus did not meet the residency requirements in s1(1ZB) of the 1967 Act was a wrong construction of the Act's requirements. Section 1 of the Act was clearly intended to resolve potential conflicts about who should have the right to enfranchise when the tenant of a house and of a flat forming part of the house are not the same person. "Held": appeal allowed. Companies are allowed to obtain enfranchisement following the changes to the 1967 Act effected by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Section 1(1ZB) of the 1967 Act was maintained to resolve the question of which of two or more people should have the right to enfranchise and did not apply to S and therefore did not therefore prevent S from obtaining enfranchisement. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.