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

Mar 20, 2019
Peter Robinson discusses English law on property fraud in Fraud Intelligence
Feb 19, 2019
Jonathan Thompson discusses why farmers are reluctant to plough cash into land in Farmers Guardian
Jan 02, 2019
The Supreme Court decision in S Franses Ltd v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd
Nov 28, 2018
Peter Robinson discusses English law on property fraud
Oct 09, 2018
Jonathan Thompson examines the Agriculture Bill 2018 in Farming Monthly National
Sep 24, 2018
Jonathan Thompson discusses the sporting rights policy in The Farmers Club Journal
Sep 13, 2018
Landmark Agriculture Bill to help farmers profitably deliver and invest in a clean and healthy environment
Apr 19, 2018
Jonathan Thompson discusses sporting rights and land in Lawyer Monthly
Mar 29, 2018
Peter Wright discusses RPI ground rent clauses in Lawyer Monthly
Mar 12, 2018
Peter Robinson discusses ground rent and leaseholds in Mortgage Finance Gazette

© Hunters Law LLP 2019 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure

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