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 a two part blog we highlight the recent cases on collective enfranchisement and look out for part 2 where we provide a sample checklist from Lexis®PSL Property providing a list of issues to consider when embarking on collective enfranchisement procedure under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
Westbrook Dolphin Square v Friends Life  EWHC 2433 (Ch)
In Westbrook, a scheme (a corporate and leasehold structure) set up specifically to take advantage of the collective enfranchisement legislation under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) succeeded. The High Court decided that such a scheme did not fall foul of the wording in the legislation. The challenge was made on the basis of the construction of the wording, not on policy grounds.
Other findings of the court included:
“The judgment will be welcomed by tenants looking to collectively enfranchise. The main takeaway is that the scheme, an artificial structure set up specifically to take advantage of the collective enfranchisement provisions of LRHUDA 1993, and designed to ensure it complied with the letter of the legislation, did not fall foul of the wording of LRHUDA 1993. The judgment is also useful in confirming a point for freeholders—they can take a point in court, even if it is not made in its counter-notice. Finally, the court gives a steer on the meaning of ‘residential purpose’ for the 25% test. It fell short of prescribing a specific test, but the remarks are a good indicator”
Wiggins v Regent Wealth  EWCA Civ 1078
In Wiggins the leasehold structure of the property was fairly complex, with a headlease, a management lease and occupational underleases of the seven flats. There were also 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.
The Court of Appeal decided that an initial notice could not be amended to include leases granted after it was served. As the initial notice had not been registered, the new tenants took free of the enfranchisement claim.
“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.”
0330 161 1234