Image from Google Jackets

Shina and others v Elghanian and another

Series: Estates Gazette ; [1999] 48 EG 147-153(7)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: LT 31 March 1999. Shina owned the freehold of a residential property in London. In July 1990, the tenants (T) served their notice to buy the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. T identified a number of tenants' improvements, including central heating, a fitted kitchen, a granny flat and external parking area. On 20 March 1998, the LVT set the price payable under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s9(1A) at £317,000 and landlord's costs at £3801.25. The landlord appealed, asking for a price of £381,000 with landlord's costs of £7,553.64 and sought interest on this price. "Held" Appeal allowed in part. The enfranchisement cost was set at £323,000 and a sum of £20,000 reflected the tenant's improvements. The term was valued at 6% and the reversion deferred at this rate. The reversion was valued at £390,000 and the marriage value was split at 50%. The landlord failed to prove that the costs determined by the LVT were wrong and interest was not awarded.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS61711 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 103456-1001

LT 31 March 1999. Shina owned the freehold of a residential property in London. In July 1990, the tenants (T) served their notice to buy the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. T identified a number of tenants' improvements, including central heating, a fitted kitchen, a granny flat and external parking area. On 20 March 1998, the LVT set the price payable under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s9(1A) at £317,000 and landlord's costs at £3801.25. The landlord appealed, asking for a price of £381,000 with landlord's costs of £7,553.64 and sought interest on this price. "Held" Appeal allowed in part. The enfranchisement cost was set at £323,000 and a sum of £20,000 reflected the tenant's improvements. The term was valued at 6% and the reversion deferred at this rate. The reversion was valued at £390,000 and the marriage value was split at 50%. The landlord failed to prove that the costs determined by the LVT were wrong and interest was not awarded.