News

Enfranchisement: the meaning of “house” has been confirmed …

  • October 13, 2012
  • By Hunters Law

The Supreme Court has given comfort to freeholders by confirming that tenants do not have the right to enfranchise their leasehold interests where the property is used only for commercial purposes.

Some months ago the Court of Appeal had given some commercial tenants hope that they had the right to “enfranchise” (i.e. acquire the Landlord’s freehold). This hope had arisen because, even though the leases were plainly commercial, the let building had originally been a house and, under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the leaseholders of “houses” have the right to enfranchise as long as they satisfy various other conditions.

Last week the Supreme Court heard two appeals against that decision, brought by two of London’s largest landed estates the Day Estate and the Howard De Walden Estate (Day v Hosebay Limited; Howard de Walden Estates Limited v Lexgorge Limited [2012] UKSC 41).

The Estates’ argument was persuasive: in brief, the 1967 Act was not intended to allow businesses to buy their landlord’s freeholds; it was intended to allow householders to buy their landlord’s freeholds.

Section 2(1) of the 1967 Act defines a “house” as “any building designed or adapted for living in and reasonably so called”.  The Supreme Court has held that both parts of this definition need to be satisfied. That whilst the first part looked at the purpose of the building based upon its physical characteristics or architecture, the second part linked the definition to the primary function of the “house” – ie as a single residence and not, say, a block of flats, hotel or professional practice, at the date that the claim is made.  The fact that the building was originally designed as a house or was used as a house at the time the lease was originally granted will be irrelevant.

These decisions provide clarity for clients pursuing, or resisting, enfranchisement claims as it is now clear that properties that are being used solely for commercial purposes will not fall within the scope of the 1967 Act.

If you would like any further information on leasehold enfranchisement, please contact a member of our Residential Property team.

Related News

Feb 08, 2021
Peter Robinson discusses Indexation Based Rent Reviews
Jan 19, 2021
Peter Robinson comments on what new and existing landlords need to know in RBS HomeWise
Jan 04, 2021
Peter Robinson discusses The Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Housing Solutions Ltd
Dec 11, 2020
Hunters retains Law Society’s Conveyancing Quality Scheme accreditation
Nov 12, 2020
Peter Robinson examines the government’s ban on evictions of commercial tenants during the pandemic and what commercial landlords should consider in The Law Society
Nov 12, 2020
Ben Gurluk comments on the Stamp Duty holiday in the Daily Express
Oct 30, 2020
Peter Robinson examines a recent Supreme Court case that is relevant for property investors in the challenging environment of the retail property market in Lawyer Monthly
Oct 22, 2020
Peter Robinson analyses the government’s extension of moratorium on eviction in New Law Journal
Oct 16, 2020
Peter Robinson examines the economic consequences of COVID-19 for commercial landlords in Property Industry Eye
Oct 16, 2020
Peter Robinson discusses UK property investors facing particular pressures during the pandemic in Property Week

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)

WARNING: Website falsely claiming to be Hunters Law

4 March 2021

The website 'hunterslawllp.com' is operating, falsely claiming to be Hunters Law. This website has been created to mirror the genuine site, although contact details including telephone number and email addresses have been changed, and the SRA verification badge does not work.

We have also been made aware of a series of faxes circulating, purporting to come from ‘barrister’ Dominik Opalinski, advising of an unclaimed inheritance of $16.95M, which feature the same website address. Dominik is a genuine partner of the firm, but is not a barrister.

We have reported this to the SRA, and contacted the website domain hosts to request its urgent removal. If you receive correspondence of a similar nature to that described, please contact us directly by reliable and established means.