[2008] EWCA Civ 864, 25 July 2008. It was found that there was nothing in the wording of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s24(1) to prevent a leasehold valuation tribunal from dealing with unagreed matters relating to an acquisition in stages. Appellant (T), the freehold reversion of a block of flats, appealed against a decision that there was no deemed withdrawal of an initial notice served on it by the tenants of the flats under the Act for the purposes of exercising the right to a collective enfranchisement of the flats. Notice identified the respondent (G) as the nominee purchaser, had identified the interests to be acquired and had set a date for the response. T served a counter-notice admitting the right to collective enfranchisement and accepting some of the proposed prices to be paid and disputing others. It enclosed draft transfers featuring terms that G neither agreed to or disagreed with at that time. T then applied to the leasehold valuation tribunal to settle the prices disputed. It did so, but did not comment on the terms of the conveyance. G then informed T by letter that it agreed to it's terms and later applied to the court for a vesting order under s24. A judge held that the application did not run until the agreement and that the application was made in time and that there had been no deemed withdrawal of the initial notice. Held: appeal dismissed. The general intention of the act was to identify the elements of a dispute and to allow a tribunal to settle them. Until all aspects of an acquisition were agreed upon an application for a vesting order did not begin to run and there was nothing to prevent the tribunal acting in stages where necessary. The judge had been right to find that the application for the vesting order was made in time and that there was no deemed withdrawal of the initial notice.