Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
In Wiggins v Regent Wealth  EWCA Civ 1078 the Court of Appeal decided that an initial notice could not be amended to include leases granted after it was served.
The leasehold structure of the property was fairly complex, with a headlease, a management lease, occupational underleases of the seven flats, overriding leases of those flats and an ‘enforcer lease’ above the management lease to allow enforcement of it despite the grant of the overriding leases. The initial notice specified all these leasehold interests as interests to be acquired, other than the occupational underleases.
The freeholder served a counter-notice admitting the participating tenants were entitled to exercise the right of collective enfranchisement.
The initial notice was not registered against the titles of the landlords of the overriding leases of the third, fourth and fifth floors (the old leases). Subsequently, the landlords of each of the old leases granted further long underleases (the new leases) which were registered at the Land Registry.
The solicitors for the landlords of the old leases claimed that the new leases were not liable to acquisition, and that, if the enfranchisement went ahead, the participating tenants would acquire the old leases subject to the new leases, but for a price which disregarded the existence of the new leases. They argued the participating tenants should pay nearly £7m for the old leases which now only gave the right to possession for 10 days in 2122.
The participating tenants asked the landlords to agree an amendment to the initial notice to include the new leases. They refused.
Subsequently the participating tenants acquired the freehold, headlease and the enforcer lease.
In the county court it was held that:
The immediate landlords of appealed this decision and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
Section 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) provides that subject to various qualifying criteria, tenants who hold long leases of flats have a collective right to buy the freehold (and any intermediate leasehold interests) of the building containing those flats together with any common areas (e.g. gardens, car parks etc.).
If the initial notice served by the participating tenants is registered against the relevant titles (taking effect as an estate contract), the landlords of any relevant leasehold interests cannot grant any lease which, if granted before the date of service of the initial notice, would have been liable to acquisition(LRHUDA 1993, ss 19, 97(1))
The Court of Appeal decided that:
It was clear from the express provisions of LRHUDA 1993, s 1, that the statutory intention was to confer the collective right on ‘qualifying tenants’ in relation to premises which, as at ‘the relevant date’ (the date on which the initial notice is given), satisfied the requirements stipulated in LRHUDA 1993. Every element of those requirements had to be tested as at the relevant date.
The whole statutory procedural machinery for the exercise of the collective right was also geared to the position as it exists as at the relevant date. The trigger dates and trigger conditions are all linked to the snapshot position as it stands as at the relevant date. The notice cannot specify a leasehold interest which does not yet exist.
There was no suggestion in the legislation that the freehold and leasehold interests to be acquired could be more extensive than specified in the initial notice, let alone that an existing claim could subsequently be extended to include additional premises or interests, not in existence as at the relevant date.
The new leases could not have been valued at all - since they did not exist at the relevant date they could not have been sold on the open market. There was nothing in the legislation supporting the concept that a later created leasehold interest was to be valued on the artificial, and false, hypothesis that it had been created earlier at some unknown date and was in existence on the relevant date (when market conditions may have been different).
The following conclusions could be drawn from the relevant statutory provisions and scheme of LRHUDA 1993:
The clear message is to ensure the initial notice is registered to avoid a situation like this. The participating tenants here can still acquire the new leases, but with a later valuation date the premium payable is likely to be higher(which was the commercial purpose of the appeal for the landlords in this case).
0330 161 1234