Case Law

The landlord’s legal costs incurred in party wall proceedings were not recoverable under the provision to “maintain or repair” but part of the costs (for taking professional advice prior to deciding what course to take and the cost of obtaining an injunction) were recoverable as the cost of “all works installations acts matters and things as in the reasonable discretion of the Landlord may be considered necessary or desirable for the proper maintenance safety amenity and administration of the Development". 

The correct approach to the meaning of “qualifying works” in s.20 and s.20ZA of the 1985 Act is to identify whether works are parts of a set of works.

A scheme set up with the sole purpose of taking advantage of the right to collective enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the Act”) by demising two leases each to hundreds of SPVs, in order to avoid the rule that a tenant holding three or more leases could not be a qualifying tenant under s.5, was effective.

Fear of a speculative enfranchisement was not a reasonable basis for a landlord withholding consent to alterations to a block to convert it into residential flats, on the particular facts of the case.

Valuation under the 1967 Act is difficult both in principle and in practice.

A mathematical challenge to the RICS report graphs of relativity is unsuccessful.

A freeholder cannot seek a leaseback with a greater demise than that specified in the counter-notice.

Service of a notice of separate representation by an intermediate landlord under para 7 of Schedule 11 of the 1993 Act does not prevent the competent landlord agreeing the premium and terms of a lease extension so as to bind him. 

The First-tier Tribunal could not accept undertakings from a landlord to carry out remedial works as opposed to making a finding that the works were not of a reasonable standard.

The appellant was the landlord of a large residential estate in London, known as the Barkantine Estate. The estate had been constructed by Tower Hamlets LBC.

The appellant was the landlord of a house comprised two flats. The respondent was the tenant of one of the flats. The landlord served a notice, under the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1987), of intention to carry out works.

A landlord was not entitled to recover its legal costs under the covenant for reimbursement of costs in contemplation of proceedings under s.146 of the 1925 Act as there was no evidence that the landlord contemplated proceedings for forfeiture and, in any event, the amount claimed was below the prescribed sum.