Craftrule Ltd v 41–60 Albert Place Mansions (Freehold) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Rimer |
| Judgment Date | 02 December 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Civ 1524 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2010/1428 |
| Date | 02 December 2010 |
[2010] EWCA Civ 1524
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
(Mr Justice Henderson)
Before: Lord Justice Rimer
Case No: A3/2010/1428
Mr Kenneth Munro (instructed by Messrs Olswang LLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Lord Justice Rimer
This is an application by Craftrule Limited, the defendant in the proceedings, for permission to appeal against an order of Henderson J made on 27 May 2010 in the Chancery Division. By that order the judge dismissed an appeal from the order made on 31 July 2009 by His Honour Judge Madge in the Central London County Court. The present application is therefore for permission for a second appeal, permission for which will not be given unless the court is satisfied that the appeal surmounts one or other of the two hurdles set out in CPR Part 52.13.
Lloyd LJ considered this application on the papers and made an order on 16 July 2010 refusing permission, expressing the view that the point at issue was not sufficiently arguable nor sufficiently important to justify granting permission for a second appeal. So the application before me presented by Mr Munro is a renewed application which has been supported not merely by the original skeleton argument but also by a helpful written statement pursuant to Practice Direction 52.4.14A(2), by which Mr Munro seeks to answer Lloyd LJ's reservations about the quality of the proposed appeal and its importance.
The point at issue is one of statutory construction under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. It arises following a claim to exercise the right of collective enfranchisement conferred by that Act. The premises identified in the relevant notice exercising the right are flats 41–60, Albert Place Mansions, in London SW1. The point at issue is based on the assertion—which I do not understand to be in dispute—that flats 41–50 are within a part of the building that would qualify as being a...
To continue reading
Request your trial