Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Les Aggio & Ors

Howard De Walden Estates Ltd v Les Aggio & Ors

The 1993 Act does not confer the right of individual lease extension on head lessees. The statutory scheme is detailed but makes no provision for the necessary mechanisms (covenants, rent apportionment, rights over common parts) that would be required if head lessees could exercise this right. The absence of such provisions, in contrast to the detail elsewhere in the Act, indicates Parliament did not intend head lessees to benefit. The expression 'qualifying tenant of a flat' refers to a tenant of that flat and that flat alone, unless specific exceptions apply. Maurice v Hollow-Ware Products Ltd was wrongly decided and is overruled. On the deposit issue, the court should order payment of...

Parties
Appellant: Howard de Walden Estates Ltd; Respondents: Les Aggio & Ors; Appellants: Earl Cadogan and Cadogan Estates Ltd; Respondent: 26 Cadogan Square Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed. Maurice v Hollow-Ware Products Ltd overruled. Permission to appeal and appeal allowed on the deposit issue in the Howard de Walden case.
Legal Topics
Leasehold Reform, Statutory Interpretation, Individual Lease Extension, Collective Enfranchisement, Stare Decisis
Land Law Landlord and Tenant Law Leasehold Reform Statutory Interpretation Individual Lease Extension Collective Enfranchisement Stare Decisis

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howard de Walden Estates Ltd

Appellant

Les Aggio & Ors

Respondents

Earl Cadogan and Cadogan Estates Ltd

Appellants

26 Cadogan Square Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a head lessee can exercise the right of individual lease extension under Chapter II of Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 as amended.
  2. 2 Whether the statutory scheme provides for the necessary mechanisms (covenants, rent apportionment, rights over common parts) to allow head lessees to exercise such rights.
  3. 3 Whether the County Court is bound by a High Court decision when both exercise the same statutory first instance jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The 1993 Act does not confer the right of individual lease extension on head lessees. The statutory scheme is detailed but makes no provision for the necessary mechanisms (covenants, rent apportionment, rights over common parts) that would be required if head lessees could exercise this right. The absence of such provisions, in contrast to the detail elsewhere in the Act, indicates Parliament did not intend head lessees to benefit. The expression 'qualifying tenant of a flat' refers to a tenant of that flat and that flat alone, unless specific exceptions apply. Maurice v Hollow-Ware Products Ltd was wrongly decided and is overruled. On the deposit issue, the court should order payment of...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed. Maurice v Hollow-Ware Products Ltd overruled. Permission to appeal and appeal allowed on the deposit issue in the Howard de Walden case.

Orders

  • Both appeals allowed on the main issue; head lessees cannot exercise the right of individual lease extension under the 1993 Act.
  • Permission to appeal and appeal allowed on the deposit issue; tenants must pay the deposit even if entitlement is disputed.