000			02026cab a2200241 4500
001			##L131346
008			051021n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u131346
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aArbib v Earl Cadogan and similar appeals
260			_c2005
520			_a[2005] EWLands LRA 23 2004, 15 September 2005. Concerns the appropriate deferment rate to be applied to the reversionary value on the enfranchisement, or for an extended lease, of houses or flats. The six conjoined appeals against decisions of the London Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and the London Rent Assessment Panel relate to valuations pursuant to notice to acquire the freehold of houses under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s9(1C) and claims for collective enfranchisement under sched 6 to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. Expert opinion was divided between an established minimum deferment rate of 6% and a lower rate of 4.5%. The court was asked to ascertain a hypothetical rate to apply to convert the current open market vacant possession value into a figure forming part of the sum that would have been realised by a willing seller under the necessary statutory assumptions. "Held": freeholders' appeals allowed, leaseholder's appeal dismissed. No binding convention exists that a fixed and constant 6% deferment rate should be universally used. Each deferment rate must be individually determined on the evidence.
590			_aIKA251005
650	2	4	_aLEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 1967 S9(1C)
650	2	4	_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 SCHED 6
650	2	4	_aCADOGAN ESTATES LTD V HOWS
650	2	4	_aLAND SECURITIES PLC V WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL
650	2	4	_aGALLAGHER ESTATES LTD V WALKER
650	2	4	_aARBIB V EARL CADOGAN
690			_aPROPERTY-LEASEHOLD PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2005/LRA_23_2004.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c76054 _d76054