Leasehold enfranchisement - notice to acquire freehold reversion lacking historical detail of lease as required by statute - mere inaccuracy not invalidating notice

Cadogan and another v Strauss: CA (Lords Justice Brooke, Chadwick and Scott-Baker): 9 February 2004

In 1983, the tenant of a leasehold property surrendered his previous lease granted in 1972 and procured a new lease of it for 65 years, commencing from December 1982.

In the same year, the tenant was also granted a lease of a garden to the rear of the property.

The tenant assigned the 1983 leases.

In June 1996, the assignee, as a qualified tenant, served a notice to acquire the freehold but, being unaware of the 1972 lease, did not give details of it in his notice.

The freehold reversioner, who was aware of the 1972 lease, contended that the notice was invalid for failing to give details of that lease, which was relevant to the determination whether the rent payable at material times was less than two-third of the rateable value since section 3(3) had the effect of deeming the long lease to have commenced in 1972.

The judge held that the notice was not invalid and found that the rent payable under the 1972 lease and the 1983 leases during the initial year in respect of the single composite tenancy was less than two-thirds of the ratable value.

The freeholder appealed.

Anthony Radevsky (instructed by Pemberton Greenish) for the freeholder; Simon Berry QC and Simon Burrell (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell) for the assignee.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that the failure of the assignee to provide the details required by the Act, which were unknown to him on the date of notice but were then known to the freeholder, constituted an inaccuracy within the meaning of paragraph 6(3) of schedule 3 to the 1967 Act and therefore did not invalidate it; and that, on materials before the judge, he had been entitled to find as he had.