Wallace's High Court win for Brick Farm Management Ltd has implications for future collective enfranchisement claims 

June 2006

In June 2005 the Leaseholders of a Housing Estate in Richmond owned by a Charitable Housing Trust won their High Court bid to purchase the freehold of their flats in accordance with the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”). The case raised an important issue as to the scope of the exclusion of Charitable Housing Trusts from Collective Enfranchisement provisions under the above mentioned Act. 

In 2006, as a result of the High Court decision the Charitable Housing Trust, The Richmond Housing Partnership argued that with respect to one of the blocks forming part of the Housing Estate the tenants were not entitled to purchase the freehold of their block because it was not a self-contained building or part of a building. In effect the High Court having determined that the tenants were entitled to the right to collective enfranchisement The Richmond Housing Partnership attempted to circumvent the High Court decision by arguing that the Tenants of one of the blocks were not entitled to acquire the freehold of the block because the block was not a self-contained building or part of a building. As a result of the action taken by the Richmond Housing Partnership the Tenants were once again required to issue proceedings seeking declaration that they were entitled to collective enfranchisement and/or that the Richmond Housing Partnership in denying their entitlement had not served a valid Counter-Notice as required by the 1993 Act.

During the course of the proceedings the Richmond Housing Partnership also attempted to circumvent the fact that they failed to serve a valid Counter-Notice by making an application for an extension of time for service of a further and positive Counter-Notice granting to the tenants the right to collective enfranchisement.

The High court upheld the tenant’s right to collective enfranchisement on the basis that once the Court had ordered that the Tenants had the right to collective enfranchisement the Richmond Housing Partnership was not able to resurrect the question of entitlement that had already been previously decided by the Court.

The High Court also ruled that the Richmond Housing Partnership was not entitled to an extension of time because the service of a Counter-Notice in accordance with the provisions of the 1993 Act had a strict time limit imposed by this statute and the Court could not extend this time limit under its powers of management pursuant to part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Samantha Bone, Partner at Wallace, said: “This judgment was important for two reasons, firstly it established once the Court had determined that the tenants were entitled to collective enfranchisement the Landlord could not deny entitlement on another ground and secondly and with more far reaching implications the Court determined that where there are statutory time limits the Court did not have the jurisdiction to vary those time limits.”

Wallace LLP instructed Anthony Radevsky to appear for the Leaseholders.