The legislation which gives tenants the right to acquire the freeholds of their properties (‘leasehold enfranchisement’) has led to many legal disputes. There have also been numerous legal cases over the years that have turned on the exact meaning of a particular word or words.
In a recent case, both of these featured. It involved a tenant who rented a house from the local council. The house, which had once been a nurses’ home, and its grounds were on the site of a former hospital. Part of the site had been sold for housing development but the rest had been retained as rural parkland.
The tenant applied, under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA), to buy the freehold of the property from the local council. The council opposed the application on the ground that the land adjoining the house was parkland and the wording of the LRA denies a tenant the right to acquire a property if the land adjoining it is not occupied for residential purposes.
The tenant argued that the definition of ‘house’ was the residential property and that ‘adjoining land’ meant the grounds in which the house was situated, not the park.
The case ended up in the Court of Appeal, which, in effect, had to decide whether ‘adjoining’ meant ‘touching’ the house, as contended by the tenant, or had the wider definition of ‘neighbouring’ the property as a whole, as contended by the council. The problem with the tenant’s definition was that if the ‘adjoining’ land was the land surrounding the house, then absurdities could result. What would be the position if a house had land on two sides which was occupied for residential purposes and on two sides which was not?
The Court concluded that in this context ‘adjoining land’ must mean neighbouring land that may or may not touch the house. The parkland neighbouring the property must therefore be considered to be adjoining land.
The tenant was not, therefore, entitled to acquire the freehold of the house and premises.
Partner Note
Lovat v Hertsmere Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1185.