Search
document

Document text Analytics

J. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11272/84 • ECHR ID: 001-555

Document date: May 16, 1986

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

J. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 11272/84 • ECHR ID: 001-555

Document date: May 16, 1986

Cited paragraphs only

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

16 May 1986, the following members being present:

MM. J. A. FROWEIN, Acting President

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 25);

Having regard to the application introduced on 17 October 1983

by J.J. and Others against the United Kingdom and registered

on 5 November 1984 under file No. 11272/84;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of

Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to:

- The Commission's decision of 5 March 1986 to request the

applicants pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2(a) to inform it whether they

wished to pursue the application in the light of the judgment of the

Court in the case of James and Others;

- the reply submitted by the applicants on 8 April 1982;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The facts as they have been submitted on behalf of the applicants may

be summarised as follows.

The applicant are trustees acting under the will of the Second Duke of

Westminster. The first applicant, J.N.C.J. is a

chartered surveyor and resident in London. The second applicant,

G.C., the Sixth Duke of Westminster, resides in Chester.

The third applicant, R.B.W., is a banker in

London. The applicants are represented before the Commission by

Messrs. Boodle Hatfield, Solicitors of London.

The applicants, as trustees, are owners of residential property in

London. Their application relates to property transactions under the

Leasehold Reform Act 1967, as amended, under which a number of leases

held by tenants of the Westminster Estate have been extended by the

tenants, on terms which the trustees contend are contrary to Art. 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

Under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (the 1967 Act), the tenants of

houses held on "long leases" (over 21 years) were given the right to

purchase an extension of the lease, on certain terms and subject to

certain conditions. The entitlement to exercise the power to extend a

lease in this way was granted to tenants whose house was their main

residence, provided that the valuation of the property for local

taxation purposes ("rateable value") did not exceed a certain figure,

and that the annual rent should be a "low rent", calculated as less

than two thirds of the rateable value. Under Section 14 (1) of the

1967 Act, a qualifying tenant has the right to acquire an extension of

50 years to his existing lease, so that his existing tenancy is

replaced by a new tenancy, for a term which terminates 50 years after

the expiration date of his existing tenancy.

Where a tenant exercises his right to call for an extended lease, the

rent payable for his tenancy is the existing annual rent for the

period until the expiry of his existing tenancy, and thereafter, for

the period of the 50 year extension, a "modern ground rent",

representing the letting value of the site of the house, without

including anything for the value of the buildings on the site,

calculated at the date when the extension commences. In accordance

with Section 15 (2) of the 1967 Act, there is a review of this rent

after 25 years of the extended lease.

Subsequent legislation has adjusted the categories of houses to which

the right to extend leases applies.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The present application was introduced on 17 October 1983, and

registered on 5 December 1984.

On 7 January 1985 the applicants' representatives informed the

Commission that they were preparing the full details of the present

application relating to extended leases and setting out their legal

arguments, in a form similar to their previous application,

Application No. 8793/79. In the same letter they requested the

Commission to defer any detailed investigation of the present

application until the determination of the previous Application

No. 8793/79. In the meantime, the applicants continued to inform the

Commission, at appropriate intervals, of requests made by tenants of

the Westminster Estate for the extension of leases, to which the

trustees have been compelled by the terms of the 1967 Act, to accede.

On 5 March 1986 the Commission decided pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2(a)

of its Rules of Procedure to request the applicants to inform it

whether they wished to pursue their application in the light of the

judgment of the Court in the case of James and Others.

By letter of 8 April 1986 the applicants' representatives informed the

Commission that the applicants wished to withdraw the application.

FINDING OF THE COMMISSION

The applicants complained of the effect of the opportunity given to

certain tenants under the 1967 Act to extend the leases of houses of

which the applicants were the freeholders. They invoked Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention

(art. 13, art. 14).

By letter of 8 April 1986 the applicants' representatives informed the

Commission that the applicants wished to withdraw the application in

the light of the judgment of the Court in the case of James and

Others. The Commission finds no reasons of a general character

affecting the observance of the Convention which might justify the

further examination of the case.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES

Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (J. A. FROWEIN)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant