Right of First Refusal in UK Law

I cannot accept that, however, because a right of pre-emption gives no present right, even contingent, to call for a conveyance of the legal estate. So far as the parties are concerned, whatever economic or other pressures may come to affect the grantor, he is still absolutely free to sell or not. The grantee cannot require him to do so, or demand that an offer be made to him.

Thus the relationship of vender and purchaser could not be established unless the Lockwoods chose to offer the retained lands to the holder of the right of pre-caption or, in breach of covenant, contracted to sell the retained lands to a third party without first offering the lands to the option holder for £3,000, If and when there conditions were fulfilled, the holder of the right of pre-emption would be entitled to buy and therefore entitled to an equitable interest.

The CD Rules apply to cases where the land in question has not materially changed in character. This Policy is designed to include sites which have so changed. It is not necessarily apparent that the policy considerations in the two cases will be identical. The interested parties here were the appellant, who had owned an individual flat, and other parties who had had interests in other individual parts of the site.

The Act imposes certain obligations on landlords but does not match them with adequately expressed rights for the tenants. In some respects the drafting is extremely detailed, in others obvious situations have not been provided for. In places restrictive expressions are used —section 16 provides examples —but the reasons for the restrictions are not clear and the Act does not deal with the lacunae that result.

By way of final comment I would add that I am strongly attracted to the view that legislation of the present kind should be evaluated and construed on an analytical basis. It should be considered which of the provisions are substantive and which are secondary, that is, simply part of the machinery of the legislation.

A third possibility is where, upon the triggering event, the landowner is not obliged positively to offer to sell the land to the pre-emption holder, but rather he is obliged to notify the pre-emption holder of the situation, leaving it for the pre-emption holder to make his own offer to purchase the land if he chooses. If the pre-emption holder does choose to make an offer, only a very unusually worded agreement would provide that the landowner was bound to accept it.

I cannot regard this defect in the tenants' purchase notice as so significant as to render it altogether invalid, for three reasons. In the first place, it was in all probability caused by the original landlord's failure to serve a notice under section 5 and in doing so to sever the transaction as required by subsection (5) of that section. Secondly, it must have been perfectly obvious to the new landlord which parts of Tudor Court could, and which could not, qualify under part I of the Act.