Speak to our friendly staff directly  +44 (0)20 7242 2523

A leading set specialising in commercial, construction, insurance and property law

Insights
This document is from our archive and no action should be taken in reliance on it without specific legal advice.

Property Law - Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Po

Area(s) of Law :
Property Law
Court :
Source : EWHC 1776 (Ch)

Landlord & Tenant
Collective Enfranchisement; Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 section 13; validity of notices;

Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Poets Chase Freehold Co Ltd [2007] EWHC 1776 (Ch)

The Landlord appealed against a decision that the tenant leaseholders were entitled to exercise collective enfranchisement. It was argued that the notice the tenants had purported to serve under section 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, though defective, nonetheless operated so as to prevented a further, compliant notice from being served within the next 12 months.

Held: The tenants were entitled to serve, and indeed had served, a valid notice under section 13 in April 2006. The earlier notice served in December 2005 did not comply with the requirements of the section and as such was invalid and not ‘in force’. Since the landlord had drawn the invalidity of the December 2005 notice to the tenants’ attention, section 13(8) of the Act did not apply, and the December notice did not have to be withdrawn, nor was there any deemed withdrawal under section 29(1). Accordingly there was no scope for section 13(9) to preclude the tenants from serving a valid notice in April 2006, which they had done.