Malpas v St Ermin`s Property Co Ltd
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1992) 64 P&CR 436-439(4)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 5 February 1992. The two premises in question were constructed as maisonettes as part of a terrace in 1905. The external appearance was like an ordinary Edwardian house, except there were two front and back doors and the garden was divided. Mrs Malpas (M) owned the unexpired residue of the lease of the whole building and occupied one flat. The other flat was sublet to a family. M sought to purchase the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. All the requirements of the act were satisfied if the building could be described as a `house`. Initially the judge decided it was a house. The defendants appealed and it was "held" that the building could reasonably be called a house. (WB 2809-43)| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS47693 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 63089-1001 |
CA 5 February 1992. The two premises in question were constructed as maisonettes as part of a terrace in 1905. The external appearance was like an ordinary Edwardian house, except there were two front and back doors and the garden was divided. Mrs Malpas (M) owned the unexpired residue of the lease of the whole building and occupied one flat. The other flat was sublet to a family. M sought to purchase the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. All the requirements of the act were satisfied if the building could be described as a `house`. Initially the judge decided it was a house. The defendants appealed and it was "held" that the building could reasonably be called a house. (WB 2809-43)