© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 first gave leaseholders the right to purchase their freehold or extend their lease. The legislation has been since been amended, but what about the most significant cases that have developed the law? The first cases under the 1967 Act were soon heard, when Customs v Hearts of Oak Benefit Society and Haw v Peek decided that the tenant must be considered a competitor in the hypothetical open market in s9(1) of the 1967 Act. Consequently, the 1967 Act was amended by the Housing Act 1969 by removing the tenant as a buyer.
The definition of ‘house’ in s2(1) of the 1967 Act was next in line for the courts. First came Tandon v Trustees of Spurgeons Homes followed by Malekshed v Howard de Walden Estates Limited in 2003, and more recently, ‘Boss Holdings’ and ‘Prospect Estates’ in 2008. Each case added to the interpretation of s2(1) by defining ‘House’, ‘Building’, ‘a house so called’ and ‘adapted for living in’. Prospect Estates was not appealed so the decision stands when determining if the property qualifies as a house within s2(1).
The case of Mannai Investments Co Limited v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd (1997) provided valuable guidance on the service of notices.
The courts have considered deferment rates during the past few years, commencing with ‘Arbib’ and continuing in ‘Sportelli’.
The position now is a rate of 4.75% for houses and 5% for flats unless there is evidence to the contrary outside the prime central London. This has provided clarity for valuers but increased the premium payable by the tenant.
Sportelli also decided Hope Value is not applicable to 1967 Act house claims, 1993 Act lease extension claims but is payable in the case of non participating flats in a 1993 Act collective claim. The principle has been established but the quantum will lead to further cases.
The case of ‘Aggio’ followed ‘Holloware’ in determining if a Head Landlord could claim a lease extension of a flat within the building as a qualifying tenant. The House of Lords determined a head landlord was a qualifying tenant within the meaning of the 1993 Act which means, potentially, an increased investment opportunity.
Majorstake v Curtis established the meaning of ‘premises’ if a Landlord sought to defeat a lease extension claim by arguing an intention to redevelop the whole or a substantial part of the premises. The landlord must now show an intention to redevelop substantially more than just the flat and a small part of the building to defeat a claim.
The next chapter in the case history of enfranchisement law is now awaited.