Image from Google Jackets

Raymond Martin v Medina Housing Association Ltd

Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWCA Civ 367, 31 March 2006. Considers whether a tenant can later exercise the right to buy when he had earlier expressly abandoned his right to buy and had not acquired any equitable interest in the property. Appeal by MA against a decision refusing his application for an injunction requiring ME to convey to him its freehold interest in a property of which he was the tenant. MA proposed to exercise the right to buy the property 13 years after the notice claiming the right to buy had been served, a right disputed by ME. "Held": appeal dismissed. A withdrawal of a right to buy notice within the meaning of the 1985 Act had to be in writing. In the instant case there been an express abandonment on MA's part generated by the serving of the notice under s122 and MA and his mother had expressly released themselves from their obligations under Part V of the Act. It was proven that in 1990 MA had no equitable interest in the property.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 133603-2001

[2006] EWCA Civ 367, 31 March 2006. Considers whether a tenant can later exercise the right to buy when he had earlier expressly abandoned his right to buy and had not acquired any equitable interest in the property. Appeal by MA against a decision refusing his application for an injunction requiring ME to convey to him its freehold interest in a property of which he was the tenant. MA proposed to exercise the right to buy the property 13 years after the notice claiming the right to buy had been served, a right disputed by ME. "Held": appeal dismissed. A withdrawal of a right to buy notice within the meaning of the 1985 Act had to be in writing. In the instant case there been an express abandonment on MA's part generated by the serving of the notice under s122 and MA and his mother had expressly released themselves from their obligations under Part V of the Act. It was proven that in 1990 MA had no equitable interest in the property.