000			02268cam a2200253 4500
001			X121835
008			030401n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u121835
245			_aLatifi v Colherne Court Freehold Ltd and another
260			_c2003
490			_aEstates Gazette _v{2003] 12 EG 130 130-137(8)
520			_a[2002] EWHC 2873 (QB), 15 November 2002. L, sublessee of a flat leased by the second defendant (W), the freehold of which was owned by the first defendant (C), sought to claim a new extended lease by serving a notice on the competent landlord (C) (with a copy to W) under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s42. W's solicitor mistakenly assuming W to be the competent landlord served a counternotice. L noted that C had failed to serve a counternotice but L would notwithstanding be granted a new lease. W became a competent landlord on being granted a lease by C but the assignment of a new lease to L had to await the resolution of its terms after referral to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. L's application that, since C had not served any counternotice, the new lease must be granted on the terms of the original s42 notice, namely £40 000 rather than C's premium of £117 000, was dismissed. L appealed. "Held" appeal dismissed. The provisions for notice under the 1993 Act can be waived in exactly the same way as defects in notices in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The mandatory requirement of the 1993 Act s45(1), that a counternotice must be served by the competent landlord, can be waived on a purposive construction of the Act. L waived his right to a counternotice from C by agreeing to treat the counternotice by W as valid, as if validly given by the competent landlord C.
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S45(1)
650			_aCOMPETENT LANDLORDS
650			_aCOUNTERNOTICES
650			_aLATIFI V COLHERNE COURT FREEHOLD LTD AND ANOTHER
650			_aWILLINGALE V GLOBALGRANGE LTD
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S42
650			_aEXTENDED LEASES
650			_aLEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
650			_aSECTION 42 NOTICES
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASEHOLD REFORM-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c72396 _d72396