Malekshad (Respondent) v Howard de Walden Estates Limited, (2002)

Extract

---

Malekshad (Respondent) v Howard de Walden Estates Limited, (2002)

HOUSE OF LORDS

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough Lord Millett Lord Scott of Foscote [2001] EWCA Civ 761

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE CAUSE

MALEKSHAD

(RESPONDENT)

v.

HOWARD DE WALDEN ESTATES LIMITED

(APPELLANTS)

ON 5 DECEMBER 2002

[2002] UKHL 49

LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords,

1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speeches of my noble and learned friends Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Scott of Foscote. I have reached the same conclusion as them, although in one respect I am inclined to differ in my reasoning. I too would allow this appeal.

The question of interpretation

2. This appeal raises the question of the proper interpretation of the phrase 'material part' in section 2(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The context is that the Act confers a right of enfranchisement on the tenants of some, but not all, residential units. Houses may be enfranchised, flats may not. So the statute has to draw a demarcation line between houses and flats. Typically a flat comprises one floor, or part of one floor, of a building. So section 2(1)(a) excludes from the concept of a 'house' the flats or other units resulting from the horizontal (side to side) division of a building. Typically also a house may...

See the full content of this document

---