Initial collective enfranchisement notice continues in force until contracts for all relevant interests exchanged (LM Homes v Queen Court)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What were the issues involved?
• What is the law in this area?
• What did the UT decide?
• Why did the UT decide the initial notice had not lapsed?
• Why did the UT decide that the Nominee Purchaser was entitled to acquire the remaining leasehold interests?
• How did the UT apply these principles to the various areas?
• The basement
• The sub-soil
• The airspace

More sections of this document available when you sign-in to Lexis+ or register for a free trial.

Article summary

Property analysis: The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UT) dismissed an argument that an initial notice, on collective enfranchisement, no longer continued in force when the nominee purchaser had exchanged contracts to acquire the first of the relevant interests it was entitled to.