000			02127cad a22002175a 4500
001			L140274
008			070914s2007 xxk f w 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u140274
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aMidhage v 60 Coolhurst Road Ltd _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2007
520			_a[2007] EWLands LRA_111_2005, 9 May 2007. [2007] 36 EG 202. The appellant (M) owned the freehold of a building, and the lease to flat 1. This included the front garden, and the other flats had right of way for access. The respondent (C) was nominee purchaser in a notice of collective enfranchisement. M served a counternotice requiring leaseback of flat 1. She submitted terms including the right to construct a parking space within the front garden. Parking in the garden had been prohibited by restrictive covenant within the original lease. M submitted that this was reasonable in conjunction with terms requiring payment for any loss of value to the other two flats. She argued that such a term would not depart from the conditions of the covenant as it provided grounds for indemnification against breaches; and that car parking had become more common since the original lease. "Held": M's proposals amounted to compensation of the other leaseholders, and not indemnification under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The indemnity existed before the appropriate time and not as subsequently proposed to be amended. The construction of a car parking space would interfere with the rights of way of the other flats. The appeal was not heard to discharge a restrictive covenant. Appeal dismissed.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aMIDHAGE V 60 COOLHURST ROAD LTD
650	2	4	_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993
650	2	4	_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S84
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL LEASES-RESIDENTIAL LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLands/2007/LRA_111_2005.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c79241 _d79241