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
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) has decided a freeholder could circumvent the determination of the terms of the leasebacks by the leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) by granting new leases of the same flats.
In Queensbridge Investments Limited v 61 Queensgate Freehold Limited  UKUT 0437 (LC) eight qualifying tenants in a building of 11 flats served a collective enfranchisement notice on the freeholder requiring it to sell the freehold to the nominee purchaser it specified. The notice identified two of the remaining three flats as those where it was mandatory for the freeholder to take a leaseback on enfranchisement. The freeholder served a counter-notice accepting the proposals, but not agreeing the terms of the two leasebacks and confirming it required a leaseback of the third remaining flat. In fact, both parties were mistaken and all three leases fell into the category where it was optional for the landlord to take a leaseback, rather than mandatory.
The UT had to decide whether there should be leasebacks of the three flats or whether the nominee purchaser should acquire the freehold subject to and with the benefit of the leases granted by the
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234