000			01341cad a22001935a 4500
001			E149607
008			100325e20100121xxk v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u149607
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aMcHale v The Rt Hon Charles Gerald John Earl Cadogan _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2010
520			_a[2010] EWCA Civ 14, 21 January 2010. Appeal considers how to value a caretaker's flat in a property subject to enfranchisement. Should it be valued on the basis that it houses a caretaker rent free and is therefore of little value, or should it be valued on the basis that the tenants of the premises have to pay a service charge designed to provide compensation for that loss of rent? If the first option is taken, then the value of the leasehold interest is lower and the marriage value is higher; and vice versa. "Held": Appeal allowed. The headlease should be valued on the basis that Mr McHale (the headlessee) is entitled to be compensated in the service charge for the loss of rack rent on the caretaker flat.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aMCHALE V CADOGAN
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-LEASES-LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/14.html _zView the judgement free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c82223 _d82223