One house or two?
Unless concerned with a problem of the kind considered in
In the light of Malekshad , the quick answer is that such a claim is highly unlikely to succeed; but watch out for the final outcome of Collins v Howard de Walden Estates [2002] 2 EGLR 61, which is heading for the Court of Appeal.
So much for simultaneous acquisition. The question now exercising some minds is whether a lessee in a Malekshad situation will be able to make successive acquisitions – a possibility raised by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which abolishes certain residence requirements: see
* The full transcript of this decision is available here.
PP 2003/6
One house or two?
Unless concerned with a problem of the kind considered in PP 2003/5 (overhangs and undercuttings), a practitioner will have to refer to Malekshad v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd [2002] UKHL 49; [2002] 50 EG 114 (CS)* only where a lessee’s claim to buy the freehold under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 relates to two or more residences vertically, and entirely separately, in the same building. Can the leaseholder claim the freehold of both properties on the basis that, having originally been built and used as a single “house”, they should still be so regarded for the purpose of the Act?
In the light of Malekshad , the quick answer is that such a claim is highly unlikely to succeed; but watch out for the final outcome of Collins v Howard de Walden Estates [2002] 2 EGLR 61, which is heading for the Court of Appeal.
So much for simultaneous acquisition. The question now exercising some minds is whether a lessee in a Malekshad situation will be able to make successive acquisitions – a possibility raised by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which abolishes certain residence requirements: see PP 2002/164A.
* The full transcript of this decision is available here.
