Parkes v Wilkes [2017] EWHC 1556 (Ch) (29 June 2017)

Parkes v Wilkes [2017] EWHC 1556 (Ch) (29 June 2017)

The court has jurisdiction under TOLATA to order a lease extension, but on the facts found—specifically, the absence of a common intention to grant a 999 year lease for no premium and the lack of purpose in the trust deed to that effect—the judge's exercise of discretion in refusing the order was correct and not plainly wrong.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1556 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Nicola Parkes; Respondent/defendant: James Wilkes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (tolata), Collective Enfranchisement, Lease Extension, Discretionary Powers of Court, Common Intention of Parties
Property Law Trusts Law Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (tolata) Collective Enfranchisement Lease Extension Discretionary Powers of Court Common Intention of Parties

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicola Parkes

Appellant/claimant

James Wilkes

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power under TOLATA to order a 999 year lease extension for no premium
  2. 2 Whether the common intention of the parties was to grant such a lease extension
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in the exercise of discretion under s14 TOLATA

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction under TOLATA to order a lease extension, but on the facts found—specifically, the absence of a common intention to grant a 999 year lease for no premium and the lack of purpose in the trust deed to that effect—the judge's exercise of discretion in refusing the order was correct and not plainly wrong.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed