Lease Extensions - Vesting Order Case Law

The most common dispute in both collective enfranchisement claims and lease extension claims pursuant to the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is the dispute over the premium to be paid.

There is also, however, often some confusion about when all the terms of acquisition are agreed, and therefore when the statutory timetable for completion begins to run. Last summer's Court of Appeal case of Goldeagle Properties Ltd v Thornbury Court Ltd [2008] now provides some assistance.  

Goldeagle Properties Ltd v Thornbury Court Ltd [2008]

The parties in this case went to the LVT to determine the price but subsequently disagreed over the terms of the conveyance. The Court of Appeal re-affirmed the decision in Penman v Upavon to the effect that time does not run until all the terms of acquisition have been agreed or determined by the LVT and that the LVT can determine disputed terms sequentially.   This is important because The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”) sets a rigid schedule for applying for a vesting order (often appropriate where there is an Absentee Landlord or Absentee Landord ) from the court following an application to the LVT to determine the terms of acquisition. If the tenant misses the window for applying for a vesting order then his initial notice will be deemed withdrawn.

The Court of Appeal ruled that where the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT)  has been asked to determine one or more matters in dispute, the time limit for making an application for a vesting order to vest the freehold in the nominee purchaser, does not start to run until all the matters in dispute have either been determined by the LVT or agreed between the parties. This is not immediately apparent from the wording of section 24 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. An order by the LVT on some of the matters in dispute will not trigger the start of that period, if there are still points that are in dispute.

The court has recommended that when a party makes a reference to the LVT, all points not agreed are put before the LVT for determination at the outset and the LVT should be asked to determine them to save delay and unnecessary expense.

 


by admin
Monday 14th of September 2015 09:34:29 PM