Freehold Properties 250 Ltd v Field & Ors

Freehold Properties 250 Ltd v Field & Ors

A tenant must have a leasehold interest in substantially the whole of a house to qualify for enfranchisement under section 1(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967; a demise limited to internal parts, excluding structural elements such as foundations and roof, is insufficient. The avoidance provisions in section 23 do not operate to expand the demise or override this requirement.

Parties
Appellant (defendant Below): Freehold Properties 250 Limited; Respondent (claimant Below): Beverley Ann Field; Respondent (claimant Below): Graham Ernest Ford; Respondent (claimant Below): Vanessa Elizabeth Ford; Respondent (claimant Below): Helen Gamsa; Respondent (claimant Below): Susan Carol Latham; Respondent (claimant Below): Steven Peter Purnell; Respondent (claimant Below): Sandra Anne Lovelock; Respondent (claimant Below): Valerie Tracey Rutherford; Respondent (claimant Below): Terence Neil Melford; Respondent (claimant Below): Carolyn June Melford; Respondent (claimant Below): John Francis Nicoll; Respondent (claimant Below): Rowena Nicholl; Respondent (claimant Below): Tony Malcolm Rudrum; Respondent (claimant Below): Gillian Patricia Rudrum; Respondent (claimant Below): Kelly Patricia Simmonds; Respondent (claimant Below): John Warren; Respondent (claimant Below): Bernadette Warren; Respondent (claimant Below): Alan John Winstone; Respondent (claimant Below): Sarah Louise Winstone
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court at Bristol, Order of Mr Recorder Norman Dated 19 July 2019
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Respondents have no right to acquire the freehold under section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
Legal Topics
Leasehold Enfranchisement, Statutory Construction, Leasehold Reform Act 1967, Definition of 'house', Avoidance Provisions
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Leasehold Enfranchisement Statutory Construction Leasehold Reform Act 1967 Definition of 'house' Avoidance Provisions

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Freehold Properties 250 Limited

Appellant (defendant Below)

Beverley Ann Field

Respondent (claimant Below)

Graham Ernest Ford

Respondent (claimant Below)

Vanessa Elizabeth Ford

Respondent (claimant Below)

Helen Gamsa

Respondent (claimant Below)

Susan Carol Latham

Respondent (claimant Below)

Steven Peter Purnell

Respondent (claimant Below)

Sandra Anne Lovelock

Respondent (claimant Below)

Valerie Tracey Rutherford

Respondent (claimant Below)

Terence Neil Melford

Respondent (claimant Below)

Carolyn June Melford

Respondent (claimant Below)

John Francis Nicoll

Respondent (claimant Below)

Rowena Nicholl

Respondent (claimant Below)

Tony Malcolm Rudrum

Respondent (claimant Below)

Gillian Patricia Rudrum

Respondent (claimant Below)

Kelly Patricia Simmonds

Respondent (claimant Below)

John Warren

Respondent (claimant Below)

Bernadette Warren

Respondent (claimant Below)

Alan John Winstone

Respondent (claimant Below)

Sarah Louise Winstone

Respondent (claimant Below)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court at Bristol, Order of Mr Recorder Norman Dated 19 July 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents are 'tenants of a leasehold house' within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and thus entitled to acquire the freehold
  2. 2 Whether the avoidance provisions in section 23 of the 1967 Act are engaged by the lease structure

Ratio Decidendi

A tenant must have a leasehold interest in substantially the whole of a house to qualify for enfranchisement under section 1(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967; a demise limited to internal parts, excluding structural elements such as foundations and roof, is insufficient. The avoidance provisions in section 23 do not operate to expand the demise or override this requirement.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Respondents have no right to acquire the freehold under section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

Orders

  • The appeal of the Appellant is allowed.
  • The Respondents have no right to acquire the freehold of the Properties pursuant to section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967; none of the Respondents are 'a tenant of a leasehold house' in respect of the Property they have demised within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.