Home Page > Property Law Library > Long leases > Enfranchisement > Enfranchisement proceedings

Home Page
Contact
Editorial Team

House?
Forms
Qualifications
Notices
Miscellaneous
Enfranchisement proceedings
Terms of the transfer
Valuation (deferment rates and hope value)
Valuation (other points)

Current page






Enfranchisement proceedings

This page refers to cases dealing with:
  • Determination of terms by LVT in more than one hearing.
  • Jurisdiction of LVT
  • Valuation - Previous LVT decisions as evidence - Midlands.
  • Successive applications - abuse of process?

Determination of terms by LVT in more than one hearing

Sinclair Gardens Investments Kensington Limited v Eardley Crescent No.75 Limited
LRA 77 2005

Summary

This case revisits the scenario which arose in Penman v Upavon where the tenant has applied to the LVT for a determination of the terms of acquisition but some terms remain in dispute. Essentially, the decision confirms that the LVT has jurisdiction to entertain sequential applications as and when disputes are identified.

Facts

The nominee purchaser in a collective enfranchisement made an application to the LVT for it to determine the terms of acquisition. The only points raised by the nominee purchaser on the application to the LVT were as to the price of acquisition and the costs (i.e. valuation and legal fees payable to the freeholder). The freeholder had, however, stated in its counter-notice that it required the conveyance to include an indemnity in its favour against any liability or expenses arising by reason of any breaches or non-observance of certain covenants "whether arising before or after the date hereof". The nominee purchaser did not agree to the inclusion of such a covenant but omitted to ask the LVT to rule on the point. The freeholder argued that the LVT had only been asked by the nominee purchaser's application to determine the price to be paid and the costs payable. The LVT had done this. It had therefore done all that it was asked to do, its task was at an end and its jurisdiction exhausted.

The nominee purchaser argued that the application to the LVT could be restored. The freeholder denied that the application could be restored and asserted that the initial notice was deemed withdrawn.

The case revisits a point first raised in Penman v Upavon Enterprises Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 956. In that case the freeholder had sought a similar indemnity covenant in the conveyance. Although the matter was raised in the application to the LVT, neither party raised it at the hearing and the tribunal omitted to rule on it. The nominee pur ... THIS IS AN EXTRACT OF THE FULL TEXT. TO GET THE FULL TEXT, SEE BELOW

Existing members, to login click => here
If you have found this page useful, you may be interested in the following:

Options
Free Summaries £nil
Full Membership From £207 + VAT (1 year)