Majorstake Ltd v Curtis [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] UKHL 10, 15 November 2007. Considers the application of an exception to a tenant's right to extend his lease within s47(2)(b) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act. The tenant (C) appealed against a decision (L135013) in favour of his landlords (M). C had given sufficient notice of his intention to extend his lease under section 47(1) of the Act. M served a notice under s47(2)(b) that they required vacation due to an intention to redevelop the flat. This exception would be upheld if they showed intention to redevelop a substantial part of the premises within which C's flat was contained. M intended to combine C's flat with another. M's contention that the meaning of the phrase "any premises in which the flat is contained" could refer to C's flat and an adjacent flat had been upheld. "Held": The intention of the section was to confer rights upon C close to those of freeholders, which M was attempting to curtail. The premises in question should be an objectively realisable physical space of which the redevelopment was a substantial part. The redevelopment comprised only a small part of the premises. 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 | 142785-1001 |
[2007] UKHL 10, 15 November 2007. Considers the application of an exception to a tenant's right to extend his lease within s47(2)(b) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act. The tenant (C) appealed against a decision (L135013) in favour of his landlords (M). C had given sufficient notice of his intention to extend his lease under section 47(1) of the Act. M served a notice under s47(2)(b) that they required vacation due to an intention to redevelop the flat. This exception would be upheld if they showed intention to redevelop a substantial part of the premises within which C's flat was contained. M intended to combine C's flat with another. M's contention that the meaning of the phrase "any premises in which the flat is contained" could refer to C's flat and an adjacent flat had been upheld. "Held": The intention of the section was to confer rights upon C close to those of freeholders, which M was attempting to curtail. The premises in question should be an objectively realisable physical space of which the redevelopment was a substantial part. The redevelopment comprised only a small part of the premises. Appeal allowed.