000			01347cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS44695
008			090401t1991 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u48570
041			_aeng
245			_aDymond v Arundel-Timms and others
260			_c1991
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1991) 21 EG 107-115(5)
520			_aCA 27 November 1990. D applied to acquire the freehold of a house under Leasehold Reform Act 1967 in February 1988. The owners AT objected and D appealed. The question arose as to whether at the relevant time D had been occupying it as her residence for the last three years or for periods amounting to three years in the last ten years. In 1984 she had moved to the house with two of her sons although one son had remained in the previously occupied cottage in which she still kept furniture. From October 1987 she spent less time at the house dividing her time between the cottage and a friends house. The original hearing held in D`s favour. AT appealed but this was rejected on the grounds that ` main residence ` did not necessarily mean ` sole residence `.
650			_aACQUISITION OF FREEHOLD
650			_aENTITLEMENT
650			_aLAW CASE
650			_aLEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-LEASEHOLD REFORM
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c30509 _d30509