[2004] UKLands LRA 72 2004, 22 June 2005. Questions whether only the county court and not the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) had jurisdiction to determine a dispute relating to the acquisition of additional land in collective enfranchisement proceedings. Appeal by L and E who were respectively the freeholder of the flats and most of the additional land, and the owner of a small area of additional land, against the LVT's dismissal of their contention that only the county court had jurisdiction in the dispute. "Held": appeal dismissed. The division of functions between county courts and LVTs is clear from the provisions of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 relating to the reversioner's counternotice in s21 of the Act. S21 distinguishes between admitting and rejecting the right to enfranchise and admitting the right but disputing proposals in the initial notice. The distinction is carried forward to ss 22 and 24 that concern the resolution of disputes. County courts deal with disputes where a right to enfranchise is not admitted and LVTs cases where the right to enfranchise is admitted but proposals are disputed.