000			02186cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS67082
008			030930n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u123772
245			_aCastlegroom Ltd v Enoch and others
260			_c2003
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2003] 31 EG 69-71(3
520			_aBromley County Court, 6 June 2003. The two defendant freeholders and the defendant headlessee (C) of a block of flats, admitted the qualifying tenants' (E) right to acquire the freehold. A day before both parties agreed the price and terms of acquisition and the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) approved them, E applied to the LVT for determination of a service charges dispute with the third defendant (D3) and no binding acquisition contract was entered into. Some months after the claimant had applied for a vesting order under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Development Act 1993 S24(3), the LVT determined the service charge dispute without resolving individual tenant service charge arrears. The judge held that the vesting order should be deferred until the time when the parties had agreed or when the LVT had determined, the service charge amount to be paid on top of the purchase price. D3 applied for permission to appeal. "Held" permission to appeal granted and appeal allowed. Sched 5 of the Act requires that any amounts or estimated amounts determined by the LVT should be aggregated with the price and not to be aggregated if they have not been determined. A vesting order under the Act S24(4)(A) could therefore be made immediately. D3 was entitled to a vendor's lien under the Act S32(2)(A), to protect its entitlement to the unpaid service charges.
590			_aABS
650			_aCASTLEGROOM LTD V ENOCH AND OTHERS
650			_aVESTING ORDERS
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S24(3)
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 SCHED 5
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S24(4)(A)
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S32 (2)(A)
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASEHOLD REFORM-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c73498 _d73498