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.

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.