Gorst & Anor v Knight [2018] EWHC 613 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

Gorst & Anor v Knight [2018] EWHC 613 (Ch) (28 March 2018)

On proper construction of the lease, considering its express terms, context, and the structure of the building, the demise does not include the subsoil beneath the building; the subsoil remains with the freeholder.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 613 (Ch)
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Brenda Anna Gorst; Defendant/appellant: Charles Gorst; Claimant/respondent: Anabel Mary Louise Knight
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master Price's Order Dated 28 June 2017
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lease Interpretation, Extent of Demise, Subsoil Rights, Horizontal Division of Property, Alterations and Landlord Consent
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Lease Interpretation Extent of Demise Subsoil Rights Horizontal Division of Property Alterations and Landlord Consent

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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brenda Anna Gorst

Defendant/appellant

Charles Gorst

Defendant/appellant

Anabel Mary Louise Knight

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master Price's Order Dated 28 June 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease of Flat 1 includes the subsoil beneath the building
  2. 2 Proper construction of the lease regarding the extent of the demise
  3. 3 Applicability of the presumption that a demise includes subsoil in horizontally divided buildings

Ratio Decidendi

On proper construction of the lease, considering its express terms, context, and the structure of the building, the demise does not include the subsoil beneath the building; the subsoil remains with the freeholder.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Master Price's declaration that the lease does not extend to the subsoil is upheld.