000			01937cad a22002655a 4500
001			L145980
008			081127e20081121xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u145980
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aGrosvenor Estates Ltd v Prospect Estates Ltd _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[2008] EWCA Civ 1281, 21 November 2008. Appellant Landlord (G) appealled against a decision that the respondent (P) had the right to buy the freehold to a building that was a house "reasonably so called" under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 S2(1), despite the fact that the lease stipulated that 88.5% of the property had to be used as an office. The building had to be maintained as appearing as a dwelling house and allowing it to appear as an office was prohibited. The judge in the original case had held that Lord Roskill's third proposition in Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeon's Homes applied and that this was a key reason for granting the right to purchase the freehold. Held: appeal allowed. The original judge was ruled to have misapplied Tandon and did not take full account of the circumstances of the prevailing use of the building. While the building had to keep the appearance of a dwelling as it was within a conservation area, it could no longer reasonably be called a house.
521			_aAdvanced
590			_aKA NTK
650	2	4	_aTANDON V TRUSTEES OF SPURGEONS HOMES
650	2	4	_aLEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S2(1)
650	2	4	_aLAKE V BENNETT
650	2	4	_aMALEKSHAD V HOWARD DE WALDEN ESTATES LTD
650	2	4	_aBOSS HOLDINGS LTD V GROSVENOR WEST END PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER
650	2	4	_aGROSVENOR ESTATES LTD V PROSPECT ESTATES LTD
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1281.html _zView the item free of charge online at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c109000 _d109000