Moreau v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd
Publication details: 2003Subject(s): Summary: LRA/2/2002, 30 April 2003. Appeal by the tenant (M) of a long leasehold house from the decision of a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determining the price on enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s9(1C). Following M's request to purchase the property's freehold, the tribunal determined the enfranchisement price at £1 955 000 with the only improvements to be deducted from this agreed value to be those carried out by M after his purchase of the long lease in October 1995. M's principal ground for appeal was that, when the lease was granted, the property had not yet been completed and therefore both the necessary completion works and the later works after completion should be disregarded, thus arriving at an enfranchisement price of £1 527 381. "Held", appeal dismissed. The tribunal correctly determined that the property had been completed at the grant of lease and to disregard only the later works. M had to show that this decision was incorrect, which he failed to do. The tribunal's enfranchisement price was confirmed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS67001 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 123402-1001 |
LRA/2/2002, 30 April 2003. Appeal by the tenant (M) of a long leasehold house from the decision of a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal determining the price on enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s9(1C). Following M's request to purchase the property's freehold, the tribunal determined the enfranchisement price at £1 955 000 with the only improvements to be deducted from this agreed value to be those carried out by M after his purchase of the long lease in October 1995. M's principal ground for appeal was that, when the lease was granted, the property had not yet been completed and therefore both the necessary completion works and the later works after completion should be disregarded, thus arriving at an enfranchisement price of £1 527 381. "Held", appeal dismissed. The tribunal correctly determined that the property had been completed at the grant of lease and to disregard only the later works. M had to show that this decision was incorrect, which he failed to do. The tribunal's enfranchisement price was confirmed.