|
|
Definitions
This page deals with the following definitions:"Designed or adapted for living in" - Boss Holdings Limited v Grosvenor West End Properties.
"Flat" - live/work unit
"House" - Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd and Collins v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd
- Shop with flat above
"Designed or adapted for living in"
Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties
[2008] UKHL 5
Summary
Section 2 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 provides that the term “house” includes any building “designed or adapted for living in” and “reasonably so called”. As per Lord Neuberger, s 2 involves a two part test. One looks first to see whether the property was originally designed for living in. One then goes on to consider whether work has subsequently been done to the property so that the original "design" has been changed.
The section
Section 2 (1) of the Act states as follows:“For purposes of this Part of this Act, “house” includes any building designed or adapted for living in and reasonably so called, not withstanding that the building is not structurally detached, or was or is not solely designed or adapted for living in, or is divided horizontally into flats or maisonettes …” This case
Grosvenor’s case was that the property was not as at the date of service of the notice “designed or adapted for living in” as the upper floors were unoccupied and very dilapidated. That argument was accepted by the Court of Appeal, Laws LJ saying that “because of the grave dilapidation apparent from the photographs the upper floors of the [property] were not at [relevant time] designed or adapted for living in”. The House of Lords disagreed. The property was originally "designed or adapted for living in" and therefore fell within the definition of a "house".
Citation
Lord Neuberger (with whom all the other judges concurred):“It seems to me that, as a matter of ordinary language, reinforced by considering other provisions of the sub-section, and supported by the original terms of section 1(1), as well as by considerations of practicality and policy, the property was at [the relevant date] “designed or adapted for living in” within section 2 (1). The fact that the property had become internally dilapidated and incapable of beneficial occupation (without the installation of floor boards, plastering, re-wiring, re-plumbing and the like) does not detract from the fact that the property was designed for living in, when it was first built, and nothing that has happened subsequently has changed that. While internal structural works will no doubt have been carried out to the property from time to time over the past 275 years, it seems very likely from the floor plans that its layout, in terms of internal wall partitions and staircases, has not changed much since the property was built. In any event, the upper three floors have always been laid out for residential use.
In my judgment, the words "designed or adapted for living in", as a matter of ordinary English, require one first to consider the property as it was initially built: for what purpose was it originally designed? That is the natural meaning of the word "designed", which is a past participle. One then goes on to consider whether work has subsequently been done to the property so that the original "design" has been changed: has it been adapted for another purpose, and if so what purpose? When asking either question, one is ultimately concerned to decide whether the purpose for which the property has been designed or adapted, was "for living in".
Flat
Bishopsgate Foundation v Curtis [2004] 46 EG 152
Judge Roger Cooke, Central London.
Leasehold enfranchisement - flat. In this county court case the tenant of a live/work unit was held to be entitled to an extended lease.
Article: The right balance by Natasha Rees, Forsters (Estates Gazette, 9 October 2004)
House(s)
One house?
Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd [2002] UKHL 49.
The House of Lords held that a house and a mews flat linked by a basement (which extended under both but was only used by one) and a door (between them at ground floor level) were not a single house for the purposes of s1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The case turned on the interpretation of material part of a house in s2(2).
Collins v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 545
This is another case where the court had to consider whether or not two properties were a house. In this case they had been joined together and on the facts the court found that there was one house for the purposes of the 1967 Act. The reasoning in Malekshad applied.
Shop with flat above
Hareford Ltd v Barnet LBC [2005] EG 122. Central London County Court
Is a shop with a flat above a house for the purposes of s2(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967? Held: Yes, according to this county court case, even though both elements (the shop and the flat) were separate and let separately. The fact that the tenant did not live at the property was also irrelevant in deciding whether or not the property was a house.
Back to top
|
|
|