Image from Google Jackets

Arbib v Earl Cadogan and similar appeals

Language: English Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWLands LRA 23 2004, 15 September 2005. Concerns the appropriate deferment rate to be applied to the reversionary value on the enfranchisement, or for an extended lease, of houses or flats. The six conjoined appeals against decisions of the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and the London Rent Assessment Panel relate to valuations pursuant to notice to acquire the freehold of houses under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s9(1C) and claims for collective enfranchisement under sched 6 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Expert opinion was divided between an established minimum deferment rate of 6% and a lower rate of 4.5%. The court was asked to ascertain a hypothetical rate to apply to convert the current open market vacant possession value into a figure forming part of the sum that would have been realised by a willing seller under the necessary statutory assumptions. "Held": freeholders' appeals allowed, leaseholder's appeal dismissed. No binding convention exists that a fixed and constant 6% deferment rate should be universally used. Each deferment rate must be individually determined on the evidence.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 131346-2001

[2005] EWLands LRA 23 2004, 15 September 2005. Concerns the appropriate deferment rate to be applied to the reversionary value on the enfranchisement, or for an extended lease, of houses or flats. The six conjoined appeals against decisions of the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and the London Rent Assessment Panel relate to valuations pursuant to notice to acquire the freehold of houses under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s9(1C) and claims for collective enfranchisement under sched 6 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Expert opinion was divided between an established minimum deferment rate of 6% and a lower rate of 4.5%. The court was asked to ascertain a hypothetical rate to apply to convert the current open market vacant possession value into a figure forming part of the sum that would have been realised by a willing seller under the necessary statutory assumptions. "Held": freeholders' appeals allowed, leaseholder's appeal dismissed. No binding convention exists that a fixed and constant 6% deferment rate should be universally used. Each deferment rate must be individually determined on the evidence.