Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 08:23, 17 December 2020

2020-12-17T08:23:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:23, 17 December 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	This case has far-reaching implications for commercial tenants of former residential buildings seeking to enfranchise their leasehold interests. The decision in the case of Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited follows that of the Supreme Court in Day v Hosebay.

−	~~This~~ case ~~has far-reaching implications~~ for commercial ~~tenants of former residential buildings seeking to enfranchise their leasehold interests. The decision in~~ the ~~case~~ of ~~Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited follows that of the Supreme Court in Day v Hosebay~~.	+	That case held that a building used solely for commercial purposes was not a "dwelling" and the tenant, therefore, had no rights of enfranchisement.

−	~~That case held~~ that a ~~building used~~ solely for commercial purposes ~~was~~ not ~~a "dwelling" and~~ the ~~tenant, therefore, had no rights of enfranchisement~~.	+	In Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited the Court considered the definition of a "flat" under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and ruled that even if premises are considered to be a flat, the use to which a flat is put must be considered as well in determining whether or not enfranchisement rights exist. In this case the Judge ruled that as the flats were solely used for commercial purposes, the tenants did not have the right to buy the freehold.

−	~~In Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited the Court considered the definition of a "flat" under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and ruled~~ that ~~even if~~ premises are ~~considered to be~~ a flat, the use ~~to which a flat is put must be considered as well~~ in ~~determining whether or not~~ enfranchisement rights ~~exist. In this case the Judge ruled that as the flats were solely used for commercial purposes, the tenants did not have the right to buy the freehold~~.	+	The judgement means that, in addition to considering whether premises are a "flat" under the act, the actual current use and nature of occupation are also relevant in considering enfranchisement rights.

−	~~The judgement means that~~, ~~in addition to considering whether premises are a "flat" under the act, the actual current use and nature of occupation are also relevant in considering enfranchisement rights.~~	+	-----
		+	This article was created by by:--[[User:Martinc\|Martinc]] 12:40, 2 July 2013 (BST)

−	~~----~~	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =

−	~~This article was created by by:--[[User%3AMartinc\|Martinc]] 12:40, 2 July 2013 (BST)~~	+	* Leasehold Enfranchisement.

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Commentary]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:Case_law]]
−		+
−	~~=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===~~	+
−	*Leasehold Enfranchisement.	+
−		+
−	[[Category:~~Case_law~~]] [[Category:~~DCN_Case_Law~~]]	+

2.25.60.100 at 13:54, 2 July 2013

2013-07-02T13:54:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 2 July 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:

−	This case has far- reaching implications for commercial tenants of former residential buildings seeking to enfranchise their leasehold interests. The decision in the case of Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited follows that of the Supreme Court in Day v Hosebay.	+	This case has far-reaching implications for commercial tenants of former residential buildings seeking to enfranchise their leasehold interests. The decision in the case of Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited follows that of the Supreme Court in Day v Hosebay.

	That case held that a building used solely for commercial purposes was not a "dwelling" and the tenant, therefore, had no rights of enfranchisement.		That case held that a building used solely for commercial purposes was not a "dwelling" and the tenant, therefore, had no rights of enfranchisement.
Line 6:		Line 6:
	In Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited the Court considered the definition of a "flat" under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and ruled that even if premises are considered to be a flat, the use to which a flat is put must be considered as well in determining whether or not enfranchisement rights exist. In this case the Judge ruled that as the flats were solely used for commercial purposes, the tenants did not have the right to buy the freehold.		In Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited the Court considered the definition of a "flat" under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and ruled that even if premises are considered to be a flat, the use to which a flat is put must be considered as well in determining whether or not enfranchisement rights exist. In this case the Judge ruled that as the flats were solely used for commercial purposes, the tenants did not have the right to buy the freehold.

−	The judgement means that, in addition to considering whether premises are a "flat" under ~~then~~ act, actual current use and nature of occupation are also relevant in considering enfranchisement rights.	+	The judgement means that, in addition to considering whether premises are a "flat" under the act, the actual current use and nature of occupation are also relevant in considering enfranchisement rights.

−	~~Created by:~~--~~[[User%3AMartinc\|Martinc]] 12:40, 2 July 2013 (BST)~~	+	----

−	[[Category:Case_law]]	+	This article was created by by:--[[User%3AMartinc\|Martinc]] 12:40, 2 July 2013 (BST)
		+
		+	= Find out more =
		+
		+	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===
		+	*Leasehold Enfranchisement.
		+
		+	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:DCN_Case_Law]]

Martinc at 11:53, 2 July 2013

2013-07-02T11:53:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 2 July 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:

	The judgement means that, in addition to considering whether premises are a "flat" under then act, actual current use and nature of occupation are also relevant in considering enfranchisement rights.		The judgement means that, in addition to considering whether premises are a "flat" under then act, actual current use and nature of occupation are also relevant in considering enfranchisement rights.
−
−	~~[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1251.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1251.html]~~

	Created by:--[[User%3AMartinc\|Martinc]] 12:40, 2 July 2013 (BST)		Created by:--[[User%3AMartinc\|Martinc]] 12:40, 2 July 2013 (BST)

	[[Category:Case_law]]		[[Category:Case_law]]

Martinc at 11:52, 2 July 2013

2013-07-02T11:52:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:52, 2 July 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:

−		+	This case has far- reaching implications for commercial tenants of former residential buildings seeking to enfranchise their leasehold interests. The decision in the case of Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited follows that of the Supreme Court in Day v Hosebay.
−	This case has far- reaching implications for commercial tenants of former residential buildings seeking to enfranchise their leasehold interests. The decision in the case of Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited follows that of the Supreme Court in Day v Hosebay.	+

	That case held that a building used solely for commercial purposes was not a "dwelling" and the tenant, therefore, had no rights of enfranchisement.		That case held that a building used solely for commercial purposes was not a "dwelling" and the tenant, therefore, had no rights of enfranchisement.
Line 9:		Line 8:
	The judgement means that, in addition to considering whether premises are a "flat" under then act, actual current use and nature of occupation are also relevant in considering enfranchisement rights.		The judgement means that, in addition to considering whether premises are a "flat" under then act, actual current use and nature of occupation are also relevant in considering enfranchisement rights.

−	Created by:--[[User~~:Martinc~~\|Martinc]] 12:40, 2 July 2013 (BST)	+	[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1251.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1251.html]
		+
		+	Created by:--[[User%3AMartinc\|Martinc]] 12:40, 2 July 2013 (BST)

	[[Category:Case_law]]		[[Category:Case_law]]

Martinc: Created page with " This case has far- reaching implications for commercial tenants of former residential buildings seeking to enfranchise their leasehold interests. The decision in the case of Sm..."

2013-07-02T11:40:12Z

Created page with " This case has far- reaching implications for commercial tenants of former residential buildings seeking to enfranchise their leasehold interests. The decision in the case of Sm..."

New page

This case has far- reaching implications for commercial tenants of former residential buildings seeking to enfranchise their leasehold interests. The decision in the case of Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited follows that of the Supreme Court in Day v Hosebay.

That case held that a building used solely for commercial purposes was not a "dwelling" and the tenant, therefore, had no rights of enfranchisement.

In Smith & Dennis v Jafton Properties Limited the Court considered the definition of a "flat" under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and ruled that even if premises are considered to be a flat, the use to which a flat is put must be considered as well in determining whether or not enfranchisement rights exist. In this case the Judge ruled that as the flats were solely used for commercial purposes, the tenants did not have the right to buy the freehold.

The judgement means that, in addition to considering whether premises are a "flat" under then act, actual current use and nature of occupation are also relevant in considering enfranchisement rights.

Created by:--[[User:Martinc|Martinc]] 12:40, 2 July 2013 (BST)

[[Category:Case_law]]