County Court, 15 October 2002. Claimant landlord (M) was the freehold owner of the building containing defendant tenant's (R) flat. The former lessee (B) contracted to sell the lease to R and served an initial notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42. He later assigned to R the lease and the benefit of the s42 notice which specified that R proposed to pay a premium of £100 000. M denied the validity of the notice as it failed to specify a realistic premium, having regard to "Viscount Chelsea v Morris" (CA, Abs60002) and issued proceedings seeking a declaration claiming that the notice was invalid as the suggested premium of £100 000 was unrealistic. M's valuation of the premium was £287 000 and R's valuer considered the premium to be about £200 000 at the time of serving the notice. "Held" judgment in favour of M. The s42 notice was invalid as the statutory provision in s42(3)(c) of the 1993 Act requires the tenant to specify a realistic premium in the initial notice which £100 000 was not. A realistic premium is one that can be justified by valuation evidence.