Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] UKHL 5, 30 January 2008. Considers whether a property which had become dilapidated but had originally been built for living in could be considered as designed for living within the meaning of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s2(1). The appellant (B) argued against a decision that it was not entitled to a declaration that it could acquire the freehold of a property under the Act. B leased a property which had been built as a private residence and later split for commercial and residential use. By the time the acquisition was attempted the property was vacant. The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge that the property was not within the Act's meaning as it was unfit for habitation. "Held": The wording of the Act was concerned with the past, and the property had originally been designed to be lived in. The fact that it was now unsuitable for habitation did not change its purpose. The Act could not have intended a condition so easily lent to subjective argument. Further, a house need not be a property solely intended for residence. The mixed use did not prevent the residential purpose of the property. Appeal allowed.Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 142656-1001 |
[2008] UKHL 5, 30 January 2008. Considers whether a property which had become dilapidated but had originally been built for living in could be considered as designed for living within the meaning of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 s2(1). The appellant (B) argued against a decision that it was not entitled to a declaration that it could acquire the freehold of a property under the Act. B leased a property which had been built as a private residence and later split for commercial and residential use. By the time the acquisition was attempted the property was vacant. The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge that the property was not within the Act's meaning as it was unfit for habitation. "Held": The wording of the Act was concerned with the past, and the property had originally been designed to be lived in. The fact that it was now unsuitable for habitation did not change its purpose. The Act could not have intended a condition so easily lent to subjective argument. Further, a house need not be a property solely intended for residence. The mixed use did not prevent the residential purpose of the property. Appeal allowed.