Curzon v Wolstenholme  EWCA Civ 1098
Adam Rosenthal appeared in the Court of Appeal on behalf of the freeholder who successfully appealed against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
The Upper Tribunal held that an initial notice under s.13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 which was not protected on the land register did not cease to have effect upon the transfer of the freehold to Mr Curzon’s wife, even though it was conceded that she was not bound by the notice and therefore that the claim to acquire the freehold could not be enforced against her. Accordingly, when she transferred the freehold back to Mr Curzon, the nominee purchaser was entitled to proceed with the claim. The Court of Appeal disagreed with this analysis of the effect of the transfer to Mr Curzon’s wife. It held that the notice ceased to have effect for all purposes and therefore could not be brought back to life when Mr Curzon re-acquired the freehold. Accordingly, this long-running enfranchisement claim was brought to an end.
Although not necessary for its decision, the Court addressed a second issue which was argued and held that where the nominee purchaser and reversioner agreed some but not all of the terms of the transfer, the agreement was binding and could not be re-opened before the First Tier Tribunal.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment is here
Back to news listing