header-logo header-logo

Landlord & tenant

18 November 2010
Issue: 7442 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Earl Cadogan and another v Panagopoulos and another [2010] EWCA Civ 1259, [2010] All ER (D) 119 (Nov)

The definition of “common parts” in s 101 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was inclusive in form, rather than exhaustive. Thus, it impliedly assumed an ordinary meaning of the expression “common parts”, which was extended or clarified by reference to, first, the structure and exterior of a building, and secondly, any “common facilities” within the building.

The expression “common parts” as such did not appear in the standard dictionaries, although some inferential help was offered by s 4(2) of the Act, which suggested that such things as garages and storage areas were “common parts” if available for shared use, but not if used in conjunction with a particular dwelling. That seemed to accord with the ordinary meaning of the word “common”: that was, for shared, rather than individual, use or benefit. The word “part” in the context of a building connoted a physical division, whether a particular area within the building (such as a garage), or

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll