Enfranchisement dispute raises questions of contractual construction (Regent Wealth Ltd v Wiggins)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• What did the Upper Tribunal decide?
• Case details

Article summary

Property analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) held that there was not a clear and obvious error in the alienation covenant in a licence to sub-let—and so no basis for the implication of a term—where the true intention in granting the licence and relevant leases had been to frustrate a collective enfranchisement claim. Richard Alford, a barrister at Tanfield Chambers, examines the decision.