Craftrule Ltd.v 41-60 Albert Palace Mansions (Freehold) Ltd

Craftrule Ltd.v 41-60 Albert Palace Mansions (Freehold) Ltd

The statutory language of section 3 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is clear and does not require that a self-contained part of a building be indivisible into smaller such parts. If the premises specified in the notice satisfy the statutory definition and none of the exclusions in section 4 applies, the right to collective enfranchisement is exercisable, even if the premises could be further subdivided. Majority rule is an intended feature of the statutory scheme.

Parties
Appellant (defendant): Craftrule Limited; Respondent (claimant): 41-60 Albert Palace Mansions (Freehold) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Statutory Construction Appeal (collective Enfranchisement) / High Court Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Collective Enfranchisement, Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, Self Contained Part of a Building, Majority Rule in Enfranchisement, Statutory Construction
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Statutory Interpretation Collective Enfranchisement Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 Self Contained Part of a Building Majority Rule in Enfranchisement Statutory Construction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craftrule Limited

Appellant (defendant)

41-60 Albert Palace Mansions (Freehold) Limited

Respondent (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Statutory Construction Appeal (collective Enfranchisement) / High Court Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a self-contained part of a building under section 3 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 can itself comprise two or more such self-contained parts for the purposes of collective enfranchisement
  2. 2 Whether the statutory right to collective enfranchisement is exercisable only in relation to the smallest possible self-contained part of a building

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory language of section 3 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is clear and does not require that a self-contained part of a building be indivisible into smaller such parts. If the premises specified in the notice satisfy the statutory definition and none of the exclusions in section 4 applies, the right to collective enfranchisement is exercisable, even if the premises could be further subdivided. Majority rule is an intended feature of the statutory scheme.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the participating tenants are entitled to enfranchise the whole of the Property
  • Order under section 25(1) of the 1993 Act entitling the claimant to acquire the whole of the freehold interest in the Property on the terms proposed in the initial notice