Cases - Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties
Record details
- Name
- Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties
- Date
- [2008]
- Citation
- UKHL 5
- Legislation
- Keywords
- What is 'a house'? - original purpose of building - building originally designed as a dwelling
- Summary
-
In deciding whether or not the building is ‘designed or adapted for living in and reasonably so called’ the purpose for which it was originally built must be determined - 'That is the natural meaning of the word ‘designed’, which is a past participle’, Lord Neuberger (Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties).
In the Boss case, the building was originally built in the 18th century as a house but subsequently came to be used partially for commercial purposes. At the time of the service of the notice to enfranchise, the building was unoccupied and, indeed, incapable of being occupied because it was so dilapidated. Lord Neuberger, giving the judgment of the Court, held that the building was a house within the meaning of the 1967 Act, because it was designed for living in when first built and nothing that had happened since had changed this.
Lord Neuberger also made obiter comments relating to whether a building would be a ‘house’ if it had originally been designed for living in but had subsequently been adapted to another use. He said:
‘As a matter of literal language, such a property would be a house, because ‘designed’ and ‘adapted’ appear to be alternative qualifying requirements…’
This raised the spectre that a building originally designed as a house but now used entirely (or mainly) for commercial purposes may fall within the 1967 Act.