In what is hopefully not an inauspicious ruling for leaseholders in over-the-web justice, 11 leasehold house owners have failed to win the right to buy the freehold to their homes.
Although they won their case in the property tribunal, the High Court accepted the landlord’s appeal that not all the houses were in fact single dwellings and therefore the leaseholders were not entitled to acquire the freeholds under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
The hearing was held via video-conference, rather than held at the Bristol Civil Justice Centre, and the judgement makes reference to “the appeal was conducted remotely over the internet … during the COVID-19 “coronavirus” pandemic”.
The reason the leaseholders failed was that one of the properties had a tripartite lease – with a landlord, management company and lessee, whose premises defined in the lease were not the whole house. It could more accurately be termed a flat, albeit in a single building.
This point had not been addressed in the lower court, but was accepted by Mr Justice Marcus Smith who upheld the appeal.
He said:
“Although in some respects finely balanced, I have reached the clear conclusion that the construction favoured by the Appellant is correct and that a tenant does not fall within the enfranchisement regime of the 1967 Act unless he or she is the tenant of substantially the whole of a leasehold house.”
The leaseholders were ordered to pay up the landlord’s £14,000 costs within 14 days.
The freehold owning entity in this case was Freehold Properties 250 Limited – whose directors are given by Companies House as Robert Steinhouse, Jennifer Jackson-Shilling and Stephen Whybrow.
On a side note, Robert Steinhouse, LKP readers may recall, is the freeholder who managed to offload for £1 the freehold of cladding site Nova House in Slough onto the council in an as yet unexplained deal.
Freehold Properties 250 Ltd v Field & Ors [2020] EWHC 792 (Ch) (08 April 2020)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES IN BRISTOLCHANCERY APPEALS (ChD) On the appeal from the order of Mr Recorder Norman dated 19 July 2019 sitting at the County Court at Bristol Mr Justice Marcus Smith: A.
Related posts:
Shouldn’t this case have been dealt with by a more senior court than the ‘low-cost’ property tribunal?
‘Our David Wilson Homes leasehold house means we don’t own it, or the land, pay ground rent and consent fees to anonymous speculators in freeholds, often based offshore,’ Cheshire woman tells local paper
Court of Appeal turns down Mundy case – unanimously
Mundy case in Court of Appeal showdown over valuation racket
Court of Appeal to hear Mundy case which will save millions on lease extensions
Please sort out ‘waking watch’ yourselves owing to coronavirus, says freeholder of Circle 109, Liverpool
I am puzzled by your summary of the case which is headed up “Bristol Leaseholds win leasehold”
I read the judgement and I quote the final part
(2) The Respondents have no right to acquire the freehold of the Properties pursuant to section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967; and none of the Respondents are “a tenant of a leasehold house” in respect of the Property they have demised within the meaning of section 1(1) of
(5) The Respondents are jointly and severally liable for the Appellant’s costs of this appeal, summarily assessed in the amount of £14,000 (inclusive of VAT), this sum to be paid by the Respondents within 14 days of the handing down of this Judgment
.
You are correct and the article has been amended.
Very sad result, and highlights one of the main beneficiaries are lawyers who do well from the arcane complexity of leasehold. I hope when the dreadful virus situation is finished, that politicians and wider society realise that leasehold as presently constructed is a grossly unfair system we cannot afford to keep.
I suppose the letter of the law was applied but the imposition of costs is gratuitous. I shall write to the judge. They shd be held accountable for their actions.
One positive thing this case illustrates is that video conference could be a way to deal with case management hearings and smaller disputes
A directions hearing at say the FTT scheduled for 2:00 pm effectively writes off the whole day when travelling time is factored in
Video cases would save significant time and money for all parties
Yes, this is certainly the case.
Hopefully it will lead to quicker and cheaper justice in the property tribunal, with the added bonus of creating modern, searchable rulings. (Not that that is a failing unique to the property tribunal.)
Hopefully we will see the legal fees, which crept into the tribunal undermining its original purpose will be pushed back. Not that I would bet on that, sadly.
Far too many tribunal cases against leaseholders are won with gaming the legal fees: far cheaper lawyers are engaged if there is a prospect of landlords not getting their legal costs (eg if leaseholders have obeyed LKP’s golden rule: pay first; fight second.)