Crisplane Limited v Plymouth Community Homes Limited
[2024] UKUT 15 (LC)
Kiran Rajaram Patwardhan & Anor v Ivygate Developments Limited
11 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 3367 (Ch)
High Court
Two people argued over whether a roof space was included in a lease. The judge decided that based on the wording of the lease agreement, the roof space *was* included, meaning the other party's argument that a notice was invalid was incorrect.
Key Facts
- •Appellants (Patwardhans) appealed an order declaring invalid their section 42 notice (Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993) for a new lease.
- •The notice included roof space above the flat, which the Respondents (Ivygate) argued wasn't demised to the Appellants.
- •The dispute centered on the interpretation of the 1966 lease's description of the demised premises as a 'first floor maisonette'.
- •The lease included a clause dividing the concrete floor/ceiling between the first and ground floor maisonettes 50/50.
- •The lease also included the staircase leading to the flat and clauses concerning repair and maintenance of the building.
- •Extrinsic evidence regarding partitioning in the roof space, electricity supply, water tank, and heating plant was presented but deemed ultimately irrelevant by the judge.
Legal Principles
A notice under section 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is invalid if it includes property not demised to the tenant.
Malekshad v. Howard de Walden Estates (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 862
Lease construction should follow the approach in Arnold v. Britton [2015] AC 1619, prioritizing the document's text and avoiding reliance on extrinsic evidence unless necessary for clarification, not contradiction.
Arnold v. Britton [2015] AC 1619
The phrase 'known as' in lease descriptions may necessitate extrinsic evidence to define the demise's scope (though not in this case).
Taylor v. Lambert [2012] EWCA Civ 3
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The court interpreted the lease as including the roof space within the demise to the Appellants. The reference to 'first floor maisonette' was seen as descriptive, not limiting the demise to a single horizontal plane. The lease's provisions regarding shared repair obligations and the lack of unfettered landlord access to the roof space supported this interpretation.