[2005] EWCA Civ 324, 9 February 2005. Considers whether a proposed purchase price for a freehold in a landlord's counter-notice under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s21 had to be realistic following the requirement from "Cadogan v Morris" ([1999] 1 EGLR 59, Abs60002). Appeal by appellant tenants (C), who had sought to exercise their right of collective enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, against the dismissal of their claim challenging the validity of the respondent landlord's (K) counter-notice. C had served a s13 notice on K to acquire the freehold for £210. K's s21 counter-notice proposed a price of £130 000 based on a professional valuation, which C rejected as an unrealistically high price. C sought to proceed with the acquisition at their price in default of a valid counter-notice. The judge found that K's counter-notice was valid and its price proposal bona fide. "Held": appeal dismissed. The "Cadogan" test did not apply to s21 counter-notices. The judge had been correct to find that lack of good faith was the sole necessary pre-condition for a declaration of the invalidity of a landlord's counter-notice under the provisions of the Act.