Application by intermediate landlord for lease extension
Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Aggio;
Cadogan Estates Ltd v 26 Cadogan Square Ltd
 EWCA Civ 499
An intermediate landlord of premises cannot use the provisions of the 1993 Act to obtain lease extensions of the individual flats contained within its lease. The Act, as originally drafted, prevented this by virtue of the residence condition. However, the removal of the residence condition by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 has not changed the situation.
Charitable housing trust
Brick Farm Management Ltd v Richmond Housing Partnership Ltd
 EWHC 1650
The freeholder of a block of flats was a charitable housing trust, which had acquired the freehold from a local authority. Some of the flats in the block were let by it on assured shorthold tenancies, in accordance with its charitable purposes. Those facts did not prevent other tenants within the block, who held long leases that they acquired pursuant to the right to buy, from exercising their right to collective enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. (Nor would it prevent the long leaseholders from exercising a right to a new lease under the Act). The long leaseholders were not excluded from the right to collective enfranchisement by s5(2)(b) of the 1993 Act. That provision provides that a flat is excluded if it forms part of the housing accommodation provided by (the Appellant) in the pursuit of its charitable purposes. However, their accommodation did not form part of such housing accommodation.
"If Parliament had intended to exclude a case such as the present from the right to collective enfranchisement, section 5(2)(b) would have excluded 'relevant premises that include accommodation provided by a charitable housing trust in the pursuit of its charitable purposes'. The exclusions from the right to collective enfranchisement and the individual right to acquire a new lease under the 1993 Act are narrow: see sections 94 to 96 of the Act." (Stanley Burnton J. at para 21).
Collective enfranchisement - breach by one tenant
Etzin v Reece, 26 July 2002
The failure by one of the participants in the purchase to provide his share of the purchase price was a repudiatory breach of contract and entitled the other participants to proceed without him.
Back to top