000			02086cab a2200277 4500
001			ABS67646
008			040324n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125557
245			_aLong Acre Securities Ltd v Karet
260			_c2004
490			_aWeekly Law Reports _v[2004] 3 WLR 866-885(20)
520			_a[2004] EWHC 442 (Ch), 3 March 2004. Claimant landlord (L), wishing to dispose of its leasehold interest in the underlease of a residential estate, sought to establish the validity of the offer notice that it had served under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 ss5 and 5B on the occupiers of the flats within the estate. The word building in the notice purported to include all the flats and the appurtenant areas. Defendant (K) challenged the notice's validity on the ground that each structure was required by the 1987 Act to be the subject of a separate notice. L contended that the notice was valid because the word building could be construed to include a building scheme comprising any and all buildings constructed as part of a development at the same time and the serving of separate notices for each of the four structures was unworkable. "Held": claim allowed. The purpose of the legislation was to give tenants the right to acquire their landlord's reversion and to provide a workable procedure for that purpose. It would be unworkable if appurtenant premises had to be split in order to satisfy s5(3) of the Act. The notice was therefore valid.
590			_aABS
650			_aKAY-GREEN V TWINSECTRA LTD
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 S1(2)(A)
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 PART I
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 S5(3)
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 S5
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 S5B
650			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987 S4(4)
650			_a30 UPPERTON GARDENS MANAGEMENT LTD V AKANO
650			_aDENETOWER LTD V TOOP
650			_aBELVEDERE COURT MANAGEMENT LTD V FROGMORE DEVELOPMENTS LTD
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c74295 _d74295