Duke of Westminster and others v Birrane
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1995) 11 EG 141-144(4)Publication details: 1995Subject(s): Summary: CA 10 November 1994. The respondent, B, leased a former mews property, converted and divided from an adjoining house years before, but with an unoccupied basement projecting under the house. B sought to enfranchise, but the landlords, D, contended that that the property was not a `house` under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 ss1 & 2, as it was not structurally detached and because a material part lay below adjecent premises. At first instance B`s case was upheld and D appealed. Appeal allowed for the purposes of s2(2) as although the property was a `house`, the basement was `a material part` in deciding whether enfranchisement would prejudice future enjoyment of the neighbouring premises.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS52549 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 84256-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 10 November 1994. The respondent, B, leased a former mews property, converted and divided from an adjoining house years before, but with an unoccupied basement projecting under the house. B sought to enfranchise, but the landlords, D, contended that that the property was not a `house` under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 ss1 & 2, as it was not structurally detached and because a material part lay below adjecent premises. At first instance B`s case was upheld and D appealed. Appeal allowed for the purposes of s2(2) as although the property was a `house`, the basement was `a material part` in deciding whether enfranchisement would prejudice future enjoyment of the neighbouring premises.