One of many questions arising from Lord Justice Holgate’s denial last week of a request by leaseholder groups for representation at a judicial review that will affect their interests.
The judicial review was called in January at the request of six of the country’s largest landowners. They object to proposals in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act (LFRA), passed in 2024, but awaiting secondary legislation. The freeholders, who include the Grosvenor Estate, owned by the Duke of Westminster, estimated net worth £10 billion, the Earl of Cadogan and Long Harbour, claim LFRA is incompatible with their human rights. Art 1 guarantees the peaceful enjoyment of a person’s property (but not property revenue). LFRA is yet to decide how lease extensions should be valued – one of the main revenue streams the freeholders seek to protect, and the case is to be heard 15-18 July.
This prompted five leasehold groups to request that the human rights of leaseholders be represented at the review as well. Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, Free Leaseholders, Brighton, Hove and District Leaseholders Association, Home Owners Rights Network and Social Housing Action Campaign presented their cases to the court. Pro-bono support was provided by Paul Ridge of Bindmans and Laura Collignon of Thomas More Chambers.
But the Lord Justice has said no. The full judgement is yet to be published but it gives a strong impression that leaseholders’ human rights are less relevant to the justice system than those of non-human corporate entities and landed gentry. Especially as one reason given was that the groups were having to rely on free legal advice! Another reason was that leaseholders are already represented by the Government. However the Government’s role is to balance all interests rather than defend one party against a well-funded attack by another.
While the legal charade continues many leaseholders face spiralling service charge costs, or are unable to extend a lease due to punitive costs. Many more leaseholders have been billed for remediation costs where flammable cladding or other building safety issues have been found, with scant concern for either their human rights or physical safety.
The power imbalance in the leasehold contract has been exploited for far too long and this cynical move obstructs the work of Parliament. It’s not just about leasehold anymore, it’s about democracy!