Image from Google Jackets

Cadogan Estates Ltd v Shahgholi

Language: English Series: Rating & Valuation Reporter ; [1998] RVR 266-276(11)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: LT 8 July 1998. A leasehold valuation tribunal determined the premium to be paid by the tenant for a new lease of a maisonette at 45 Cadogan Place, London SW1 at £417,975. The landlord appealed to the Lands Tribunal and the tenant cross appealed. It was agreed that the tenant was entitled to a new 90 year lease at a peppercorn rent, that the valuation date was 4 June 1996, and that the deferment rate for valuing the landlord`s existing and proposed reversionary interests was 6%. Five elements were at issue: the vacant possession value of the lease, the adjustment of the value of the lease to reflect the freehold value, the deduction to reflect the tenant`s right to a statutory tenancy, the value of the tenant`s existing interest, and the landlord`s share of marriage value. "Held" the premium to be paid was £572,500. It had been clearly demonstrated that the leasehold valuation tribunal was wrong and the conclusion and valuation was against the weight of market evidence presented.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Date due Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS59694 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 89940-1001

LT 8 July 1998. A leasehold valuation tribunal determined the premium to be paid by the tenant for a new lease of a maisonette at 45 Cadogan Place, London SW1 at £417,975. The landlord appealed to the Lands Tribunal and the tenant cross appealed. It was agreed that the tenant was entitled to a new 90 year lease at a peppercorn rent, that the valuation date was 4 June 1996, and that the deferment rate for valuing the landlord`s existing and proposed reversionary interests was 6%. Five elements were at issue: the vacant possession value of the lease, the adjustment of the value of the lease to reflect the freehold value, the deduction to reflect the tenant`s right to a statutory tenancy, the value of the tenant`s existing interest, and the landlord`s share of marriage value. "Held" the premium to be paid was £572,500. It had been clearly demonstrated that the leasehold valuation tribunal was wrong and the conclusion and valuation was against the weight of market evidence presented.