000			01972cab a22002055a 4500
001			L142053
008			080123e20080119xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u142053
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aMarine Court (St Leonards on Sea) Freeholders Ltd v Rother District Investments Ltd
260			_c2008
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0802) 19 January 2008, 148-151(4)
520			_a[2008] 02 EG 148. Considers whether common parts of a mixed-use building, to which tenants do not have access, can be considered as non-residential for the purposes of the leasehold enfranchisement; and whether balconies should be included in the internal floor area. The defendant landlord (R) owned the freehold of a unique art deco building comprised mainly of flats, with shops at ground level. R served a counternotice to the claimant (M)'s collective enfranchisement notice, disputing M's right to acquire the freehold. R contended that "common parts" for the purposes of the Act should hold some residential character and could not include parts available only to the commercial occupiers. Owing to an issue which arose, R also contended that balconies should be included in the overall floor area. These preliminary issues were tried. "Held": Common areas do not, for the purposes of the Act, need to be common to both residential and commercial occupants. M did not show that the esception in s4(1) applied. Parliament had not intended the courts to have to classify each different common part of the building. Determined for M. Only the more open balconies were not to be considered within the internal floor area.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aMARINE COURT (ST LEONARDS ON SEA) FREEHOLDERS LTD V ROTHER DISTRICT INVESTMENTS LTD
650	2	4	_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 INDIANA INVESTMENTS LTD V TAYLOR
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
942			_n0
999			_c79716 _d79716