Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
SGL 1 Ltd v FSV Freeholders Ltd
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal concerns the meaning of "building" for Part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) and whether section 5 notices served were valid. The dispute arises from the proposed disposal of the freehold reversion of five blocks of flats, referred to in the opinion as Blocks A–E, in a residential development (hereinafter "the Development") located in The City. The registered proprietor (the landlord) entered administration. The administrators served two section 5 offer notices: one in respect of Block A and one in respect of Blocks B, C and E. A purchaser (Company C) acquired the development under a contract after the requisite majority of qualifying tenants did not accept the offers. Company B was incorporated and authorised by a substantial number of qualifying tenants as nominee for acquiring the freehold reversion.
Procedurally: by order dated 11 January 2022, Judge Lampkin declared compliance with section 5 on disposal of Blocks A, B, C and E to Company C and made an order as to costs. By order dated 14 October 2022, Judge Fancourt allowed an appeal in part, set aside Judge Lampkin's order and restored the claim for determination of (i) whether Blocks A, B, C and E comprise one, two or more "buildings" for Part 1 LTA 1987 and (ii) whether the section 5 notices were valid. In October 2024 Judge Hodge (sitting in the High Court) held that Blocks A, B, C and E together constituted a single "building" and that the two section 5 notices were invalid, applying the reasoning in Long Acre Securities Ltd v Karet. The present appeal followed.
Legal Issues Presented
- What is the meaning of "building" for the purposes of Part 1 LTA 1987?
- How is it to be decided whether a proposed disposal involves "more than one building" under section 5(3) LTA 1987, and how to determine the number of buildings comprised in a disposal?
- Were the section 5 notices served in respect of Block A and of Blocks B, C and E valid?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Company C)
- Attorney DeWaal submitted that the decision in Karet goes too far; a "building" should ordinarily mean a single structure, save where structures are practically indivisible or physical division is impossible.
- The test should be clear and practical; detailed multi-factorial inquiries of the kind undertaken by the judge were unnecessary and undesirable.
- On the facts, Blocks C and E are indivisible and Block B is indivisible from them because of shared plant room and services; Block A should be treated separately.
Respondent's Arguments (Company B)
- Attorney Ashgar supported the Karet approach: amalgamating structures may sometimes be necessary to avoid absurdity and to give effect to the statutory purpose; the LTA 1987 does not prescribe how appurtenances should be split, and Karet best avoids absurd outcomes.
- Attorney Asghar argued the question is fact-specific and that in this case separating Block A from the others would lead to an unwieldy and unreasonable result.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Denetower Ltd v Toop [1991] 1 WLR 945 |
"Building" can include appurtenances (e.g., gardens, yards) enjoyed with flats; appurtenances are a matter of fact and degree. |
Used to show that appurtenances may be included in "building" and to illustrate difficulties of splitting shared appurtenances; informed the statutory interpretation debate. |
| Governors of St. Thomas's Hospital v. Charing Cross Railway Co. (1861) 1 J. & H. 400 |
Authority on inclusion of house appurtenances in compulsory purchase context (historical support for a broad meaning of "building"). |
Quoted in Denetower and relied upon to support that "building" may include appurtenances. |
| Kay Green v Twinsectra Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 1587 |
Emphasis that, ordinarily, separate buildings should be treated separately for Part 1 purposes; the building-by-building approach avoids absurdity in tenant self-determination. |
Cited for the proposition that each building is to be considered separately and for Aldous LJ's and Staughton LJ's reasoning on severability; the court considered its relevance to the landlord/tenant initiative distinction. |
| 30 Upperton Gardens Management Ltd v Akano [1990] 2 EGLR 232 |
Leasehold Valuation Tribunal view that a building scheme with shared amenities could not reasonably be split and should be treated as a single "building scheme". |
Referred to as an authority illustrating practical problems of severing a development; discussed and contrasted with other authorities. |
| Long Acre Securities Ltd v Karet [2004] EWHC 442 (Ch), [2005] Ch 61 |
Held that "building" may include more than one structure where occupants of qualifying flats share the use of the same appurtenant premises; adopted a multi-factorial approach. |
The judge below followed Karet; the appellate court reviewed Karet in detail, concluded it was wrongly decided in principle, and declined to follow it as binding, though acknowledging circumstances in which structures may be one "building". |
| Berisworth [2008] 2 P & CR 3 |
Appurtenance is a question of fact and degree; areas over which tenants have rights may be appurtenant. |
Relied upon in discussion of the meaning of "appurtenance" and to support factual assessment of rights enjoyed by tenants. |
| York House (Chelsea) Ltd v Thompson [2020] Ch 1 |
Interpretation of "appurtenance": includes areas enjoyed with or needed for upkeep of the building; weight given to tenant enjoyment and landlord's repair obligations. |
Used to inform the court's understanding of "appurtenance" and to support purposive interpretation favouring inclusion of areas enjoyed with the building. |
| R (O (A Child)) v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2022] UKSC 2, [2023] AC 255 |
Principles of statutory construction: consider words in context and adopt an objective, purposive approach. |
Referred to as authority on statutory interpretation principles applied to LTA 1987. |
| Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates [1980] AC 74 |
Caution about crossing the boundary between judicial construction and legislation. |
Cited to caution against judicial overreach in construing "building" too far beyond the statute's language. |
| Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] |
Standard principle that appellate courts should not interfere with findings of fact unless compelled. |
Cited on the standard of review of factual findings and evaluations; explained why interference was necessary where an error of law was identified. |
| Wheeldon v Burrows (1897) 12 Ch D 31 |
Rule on quasi-easements and how rights may pass on disposition of land. |
Referenced to explain mechanisms by which rights and quasi-easements might pass to a purchaser and to inform the practical consequences of severance. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a purposive statutory construction of Part 1 LTA 1987, applying the presumption against absurdity and established principles of interpretation. Key steps in the analysis were:
- Statutory context and purpose: the court emphasised the purpose of the Act (to give tenants rights to acquire their landlord's reversion) and the mandatory nature of section 5. The words must be read in context and purposively.
- Assessment of Karet: the court analysed Long Acre Securities Ltd v Karet in detail. It concluded the deputy judge in Karet had approached the issue through the lens of tenant purchase notices (section 12) rather than the landlord's initiative under section 5, and had not given sufficient weight to the fact that the landlord chooses what to include in an offer notice. The appellate court held that Karet was wrongly decided in principle insofar as it suggested a broad rule that many building schemes must be treated as a single "building".
- Formulation of the correct approach: the court held there will be circumstances in which separate structures constitute one "building" for Part 1 purposes, but the appropriate yardstick is functional integration: whether the structures are within a functionally integrated built envelope. This avoids Karet's expansive construction while accommodating cases where separation is impractical.
- Application to the facts: applying the "functionally integrated built envelope" yardstick, the court analysed the Development's features (plans, structural connections, shared services and plant, shared means of access, management and service charge arrangements, shared amenities, planning and enforcement history). The court concluded Block A was a redeveloped warehouse with separate services and utilities and thus a separate building. Blocks C and E were functionally integrated (shared entrance, stair, plant room) and Block B, lacking independent plant, could not function independently without major works; therefore Blocks B, C and E form a single building for Part 1 purposes.
- Standard of review: the court acknowledged the general reluctance to disturb factual findings but concluded it must correct the judge's application of the wrong legal test; accordingly it intervened on the legal error and applied the correct test to the findings of fact.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED
Holding: the appellate court allowed the appeal. It concluded that (i) Block A is a separate "building" for the purposes of Part 1 LTA 1987 and (ii) Blocks B, C and E together constitute a single "building" within the meaning of the Act. Applying that conclusion, the court held that the section 5 notices relating to Block A and to Blocks B, C and E respectively were valid.
Implications: the direct effect is that the disposals (as notified) comported with section 5 for those parcels as identified by the court. The court rejected the broad approach in Long Acre/Karet and articulated a functional-integration yardstick for when multiple structures may amount to one "building". The court noted practical difficulties in section 5(3) and observed that the Secretary of State has regulatory powers under the Act worth consideration; it did not purport to legislate beyond the statutory text.
Click here to read the full judgment