000			01333cab a2200181 4500
001			L130215
008			050704n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u130215
041			_aeng
100			_aDriscoll, James
245			_aUnrealistic landlords
260			_c2005
490			_aNew Law Journal _v155(7181) 17 June 2005, 942-943(2)
520			_aArgues that the courts were mistaken in ruling that a leaseholder's failure to propose a realistic premium invalidates a claim notice; as the CA recently held in "9 Cornwall Crescent London Ltd v the Kensington and Chelsea LBC" ([2005] EWCA Civ 324, L129524). Considers the current position of the law on notices, counter-notices and enfranchisement claims. Examines: enfranchisement claims; disputes over the entitlement to acquire; realistic premiums; applications where the landlord fails to serve a counter-notice; and the validity of counter-notices. Questions whether an unrealistic premium invalidates a counter-notice and concludes that it is a pity that arguments are continuing over the validity of leaseholder's notices where the dispute is over price payable not over the leaseholder's entitlement to exercise rights or not.
590			_aIKA040705
690			_aPROPERTY-LEASEHOLD PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
942			_n0
999			_c75497 _d75497