Day and another v Hosebay Ltd; Howard de Walden Estates Ltd v Lexgorge Ltd
Language: English Publication details: 2012Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2012] UKSC 41, 10 October 2012. Two co-joined appeals concerned with the definition of a house for enfranchisement purposes under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s2(1). Properties used entirely for commercial purposes are not houses within the meaning of s2(1) whatever their original design or current appearance. Held: Appeal allowed. CA decisions overturned.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 157294-2001 |
Browsing Virtual shelves, Shelving location: Online Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| ONLINE PUBLICATION 2012 GRESB Report [electronic resource] | ONLINE PUBLICATION Over a £130 a month cheaper to buy than rent [electronic resource] | ONLINE PUBLICATION You're the weakest link [electronic resource] goodbye! | ONLINE PUBLICATION Day and another v Hosebay Ltd; Howard de Walden Estates Ltd v Lexgorge Ltd | ONLINE PUBLICATION Click and capture? - harnessing multi-channel retail sales for turnover rent calculations | ONLINE PUBLICATION Opco/Propcos - structurally unsound? | ONLINE PUBLICATION After the goldrush |
[2012] UKSC 41, 10 October 2012. Two co-joined appeals concerned with the definition of a house for enfranchisement purposes under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s2(1). Properties used entirely for commercial purposes are not houses within the meaning of s2(1) whatever their original design or current appearance. Held: Appeal allowed. CA decisions overturned.