Respondent leaseholder serving notice on appellant freeholder to acquire reversionary interest in property — Respondent adducing evidence of title — Evidence of title acquired several weeks prior to relevant date for purposes of notice under section 20 of Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 — Whether evidence failing to comply with notice since not showing ownership as at relevant date — Appeal dismissed
The appellant company owned the freehold of several blocks of flats. The respondent company was the nominee for a number of tenants, who were applying, under section 1(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, to acquire the reversionary interest in the property. In August 2001, the respondent served the initial section 13 notice on the appellant.
Under section 20, the participating tenants were required to deduce their titles to the leases, by virtue of which they claimed to be qualifying tenants, within 21 days from the date upon which the appellant had served the appropriate notice. The respondent duly served the appellant with endorsed copies of entries from the Land Registry. The endorsement on the office copy entries stated that they were those subsisting as at 12 June 2001, prior to the service of the initial notice on the appellant, and several weeks prior to the relevant date under the section 20 notice.
The appellant sought a declaration that, since the tenants were not shown as the registered proprietors as at the relevant date, the section 20 notice had not been complied with. The claim was dismissed at first instance and on appeal. The appellant further appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Section 20 did not require proof of title as at the relevant date. What it required was the provision, within the specified period of 21 days, of a specific form of evidence to support the tenants’ assertion. This was an administrative or procedural requirement only, and issues as to the validity of the claim were to be resolved in proceedings brought under section 22, not through litigation based on compliance with the section 20 notice. The provisions of section 20 also applied to unregistered land and, given that the methods of deducing title to unregistered land could be complex, it could not be the case that evidence supplied in good faith would have to be investigated, and even adjudicated upon, in order to determine whether it had complied with section 20. In the instant case, the respondent had clearly complied with the section 20 notice. Any challenge as to that compliance was to be made by way of counternotice if the appellant were so minded.
Anthony Radevsky (instructed by Derek T Wilkinson, of Bournemouth) appeared for the appellant; Gabriel Fadipe (instructed by Preston & Redman, of Bournemouth) appeared for the respondent.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
