Summary

The question for consideration was whether a headlessee of two flats in a block of flats was the qualifying tenant for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Housing & Urban Development Act 1993 and was able to seek new leases of those two flats. The flats were not sublet on long leases and there was no other qualifying tenant.

Facts

The case is also of more general interest on precedent as the CA held that a county court is, as a matter of judicial precedent, bound by a previous first instance decision of the High Court.

Held

It was held that a headlessee is not a qualifying tenant for the purposes of individual lease extension. The previous decision on the point, Maurice v Hollow-Ware Products [2005] 2 EGLR 71, was overruled.