000			01946cab a2200205 4500
001			L130255
008			050711n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u130255
041			_aeng
245			_aMaurice and others v Hollow-Ware Products Ltd
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2005] 26 EG 132-134(3)
520			_a[2005] EWHC 815 (Ch), 15 March 2005. Claimant freeholders (M) sought to determine whether defendant company lessee (H) was a qualifying tenant for the purpose of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 s39. H held a lease for the entire building including the flats. H served notice on M to exercise its right to acquire new long leases for each of the 28 flats in the block. M contended that the grant of new leases would not be a substitution of the existing lease as per s56(1)(a) of the Act as the existing lease would remain for the common parts. If it were agreed to regard the existing lease as remaining it would require modification for which there were no provisions in the Act nor any mechanism for apportioning the consideration and the rent. "Held": claim dismissed. H was entitled to a new lease for each flat. The Act defined a qualifying tenant in express terms that were directly applicable to the situation. The new lease under s56(1)(a) would be a substitution for the existing lease to the extent of the premises covered by the new lease and the apportionment of the rent on the surrender of parts of the existing lease would be carried out according to the existing common law principles of apportionment
590			_aIKA190705
650			_aMAURICE AND OTHERS V HOLLOW-WARE PRODUCTS LTD
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S56(1)(A)
650			_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S39
690			_aPROPERTY-LEASEHOLD PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
942			_n0
999			_c75517 _d75517