000			01926cad a22002055a 4500
001			L142785
008			080310e20081115xxk f 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u142785
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aMajorstake Ltd v Curtis _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2007
520			_a[2007] UKHL 10, 15 November 2007. Considers the application of an exception to a tenant's right to extend his lease within s47(2)(b) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act. The tenant (C) appealed against a decision (L135013) in favour of his landlords (M). C had given sufficient notice of his intention to extend his lease under section 47(1) of the Act. M served a notice under s47(2)(b) that they required vacation due to an intention to redevelop the flat. This exception would be upheld if they showed intention to redevelop a substantial part of the premises within which C's flat was contained. M intended to combine C's flat with another. M's contention that the meaning of the phrase "any premises in which the flat is contained" could refer to C's flat and an adjacent flat had been upheld. "Held": The intention of the section was to confer rights upon C close to those of freeholders, which M was attempting to curtail. The premises in question should be an objectively realisable physical space of which the redevelopment was a substantial part. The redevelopment comprised only a small part of the premises. Appeal allowed.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aMAJORSTAKE LTD V CURTIS
650	2	4	_aLEASEHOLD REFORM, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 S47
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY-RESIDENTIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-RESIDENTIAL LEASES-RESIDENTIAL LEASE RENEWAL
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080206/majors-1.htm _zView the judgment free of charge at www.publications.parliament.uk...
942			_n0
999			_c79939 _d79939