Home Page > Property Law Library > Long leases > Enfranchisement > Terms of the transfer

Home Page
Editorial Team

Enfranchisement proceedings
Terms of the transfer
Valuation (deferment rates and hope value)
Valuation (other points)

Current page

Terms of the transfer

This page contains details of cases relating to:

  • Acquisition of part - what the nominee requires
  • Common parts - caretaker's flat - prohibited disposal
  • Retained land
  • Sub-letting not allowed

Acquisition of leasehold interests

Which bits are included?

Hemphurst Limited v Durrels House Limited
[2011] UKUT 6 (LC)


On a collective enfranchisement claim, can the nominee purchaser claim to acquire only those parts of the roof as are necessary to maintain the rest of the building or is he obliged to acquire the whole roof? The Upper Tribunal held that the nominee purchaser can purchase only the parts needed.


The freeholder had granted to a company G, a 999 year lease of the surface and air space on the roof of the block, including the right to build a flat or flats on the roof. G had planning permission to build a penthouse flat with a substantial terrace.

On a collective enfranchisement claim, the nominee purchaser argued that s2 of the 1993 Act should be construed so as to allow the nominee purchaser to acquire only those parts of the roof which were not required for the implementation of the planning consent but which would be required for the proper maintenance of the rest of the block, such as the remaining parts of the roof and the ventilation shaft outlets. The freeholder argued that the nominee purchaser was obliged to seek to acquire the whole of the roof lease or nothing and in this case it should be nothing at all. The LVT ruled that there could not be piecemeal acquisition and that the nominee purchaser could purchase the whole roof space. The nominee purchaser appealed against the conclusion that that there could not be piecemeal acquisition. The freeholder appealed against the conclusion that the whole lease fell to be acquired.


HHJ Mole QC (Upper Tribunal) held that there was no persuasive reason to construe s2 as requiring the nominee purchaser to acquire all or nothing:
    “It does seem to me that to read s2 as enabling the nominee purchaser to acquire as much of the leasehold interest as is needed and wanted but not insisting that all of it would be acquired, is much more consistent with the purpose of conferring on the tenants those advantages Parliament must ha ... 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:

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