In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate to imply a term into a lease that prohibits a tenant from using the demised premises for an illegal purpose? That was the issue in Assethold Ltd v Interface Properties Ltd [2024] UKUT 371 (LC).
The value of ‘Act’ Rights: Daejan Investments Ltd v Collins [2024] UKUT 26 (LC)
![The value of ‘Act’ Rights: Daejan Investments Ltd v Collins [2024] UKUT 26 (LC)](https://tanfieldchambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/shutterstock_2056279904-jpg.webp)
Nicola Muir and Mark Loveday appeared for the Appellant and Respondent respectively in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) leasehold enfranchisement decision of Daejan Investments Ltd v Collins [2024] UKUT 26 (LC) handed down on 9 February 2024 (Judge Elizabeth Cooke).
The claim, a rare rehearing of a lease extension claim, raised various valuation issues, including the treatment of leasehold relativity in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic. The Tribunal adopted the primary approach to leasehold relativity in the guideline case Trustees of the Sloane Stanley Estate v Mundy [2016] UKUT 223 (LC). In particular, it rejected the use of Savills tables for the value of ‘Act’ rights under the Mundy approach. Instead, it provided an updated table for the value of Act rights which it commended for future use in valuations at [68] – [69]:
Unexpired term |
Adjustment for “Act rights” |
Decision |
Reference |
41.32 |
10.00% | Mundy | [2016] UKUT 223 (LC) |
45 |
7.50% | Nailrile | [2009] RVR 95 |
52.6 | 6.00% | Zucconi |
[2019] UKUT 242 (LC) |
53.96 |
5.85% | Collins |
[2024] UKUT 26 (LC) |
57.68 |
5.50% |
Orchidbase |
[2016] UKUT 468 (LC) |
66.8 |
3.50% |
Sinclair |
[2017] UKUT 494 (LC) |
67.49 |
3.50% |
Contactreal |
[2017] UKUT 178 (LC) |
68.62/68.67 | 3.50% | Elmbirch |
[2017] UKUT 314 (LC) |
69.3/71.9 |
3.50% |
Roberts |
[2018] UKUT 64 (LC) |
75.2 |
2.50% |
Reiss |
[2018] UKUT 0311 (LC) |
77.7 | 2.50% | Sarum Props |
[2009] UKUT 188 (LC) |
Mark Loveday, who appeared for the Respondents said: “Leasehold relativity is a contentious area of element of enfranchisement premium calculations. The Upper Tribunal is taking a firm and consistent line on relativity valuation, and the updated table of ‘Act rights’ is useful guidance for the approach to be adopted by valuers”.
This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Tanfield or by Tanfield as a whole.