Raymere Ltd. v Belle Vue Gardens Ltd.

Under section 20 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, a nominee purchaser must, within 21 days, take positive steps in good faith to provide evidence supporting each participating tenant’s title to the lease at the relevant date. The requirement is administrative and procedural. It does not demand conclusive proof of an unimpeachable title at that date. A complete failure to provide evidence, or evidence so stale that it amounts to no compliance, may trigger deemed withdrawal. Imperfect or incomplete evidence should instead be addressed through the counter-notice and, where appropriate, the statutory court application. Compliance is fact-sensitive. Recent office copy entries supplied in good faith may suffice, even if dated before the relevant date.

Raymere Ltd., the freeholder of three blocks of flats, appealed against the dismissal of its claim that Belle Vue Gardens Ltd., the nominee purchaser for 49 tenants, had failed to comply with notices under section 20 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

The initial notices were given on 6 August 2001. Raymere served section 20 notices on 10 August 2001. Belle Vue supplied office copy register entries dated 12 June 2001 for 48 registered titles, within the prescribed 21-day period. Raymere argued that the entries did not conclusively prove title on the relevant date and that the initial notices were consequently deemed withdrawn.

The District Judge dismissed the claim, and His Honour Judge Thompson QC dismissed the appeal. The central issue was whether the supplied entries constituted compliance with section 20.

1. Appeal dismissed. Jonathan Parker LJ delivered the leading judgment. Holman J agreed and gave additional reasons. Brooke LJ agreed with both judgments.
2. The right to collective enfranchisement arises by reference to the tenant’s status on the relevant date. Accordingly, the title relevant to section 20(1) is title to the specified leasehold interest on that date. That conclusion did not, however, determine what constituted compliance with a section 20 notice.
3. Reading Chapter I of Part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 as a whole, the obligation to deduce title is administrative and procedural. It requires the nominee purchaser to provide, within 21 days, evidence supporting the assertion that each participating tenant owned the specified leasehold interest on the relevant date. It does not require conclusive proof that the tenant had a good title in law. The twelve-month consequence of deemed withdrawal supports that construction. A defect in title is more appropriately raised in the reversioner’s counter-notice under section 21(2)(b), and title issues may be resolved in proceedings under section 22.
4. Holman J emphasised the distinction between failing altogether to comply and complying imperfectly or incompletely. The nominee purchaser must at least take positive steps, in good faith, to produce evidence or material directed to deducing title. Imperfect evidence does not by itself trigger section 20(3). Whether there has been compliance is a question of fact. The same standard applies to registered and unregistered titles.
5. The office copy entries were recent, supplied within time, and represented a positive good-faith attempt to comply. Belle Vue therefore complied with the section 20 notices, despite the entries being dated before the relevant date. Raymere’s remedy was to challenge the titles in its counter-notice. The agreed order was lodged and leave to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed Raymere Ltd.’s second appeal against the order of His Honour Judge Thompson QC.
• Winchester County Court: His Honour Judge Thompson QC dismissed Raymere’s appeal on 17 January 2003.
• Bournemouth County Court: District Judge Weintroub dismissed Raymere’s claim on 5 September 2002.