header-logo header-logo

11 September 2008 / Nat Duckworth , Adam Rosenthal
Issue: 7336 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

A qualifying tenant?

Adam Rosenthal and Nat Duckworth unravel the implications of Cadogan

In Maurice v Hollow-Ware Products Ltd [2005] EWHC 815 (Ch), [2005] 2 EGLR 71, a block of flats was subject to a head lease, out of which were granted long underleases of each of the 28 flats in the block. David Donaldson QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery Division, upheld the claim by the head lessee of the block to be entitled to lease extensions of each of the 28 flats, by virtue of the head lease, under Ch 2 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993). This decision was followed by two judges of the Central London County Court in Earl Cadogan v 26 Cadogan Square Limited and Howard de Waldon Estates Limited v Aggio and others.

Cadogan concerned a six-storey building, the lower three of which were used as offices and the upper three comprised a single maisonette, subject to an assured shorthold tenancy. Aggio concerned a five-storey building converted into flats, of

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll