![[2025] EWHC 2751 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
For all these reasons, we conclude that the measures under challenge, the Ground Rent Cap, the Marriage Value Reform and the Costs Recovery Reform, whether considered individually or cumulatively, including their application to charities, are compatible with A1P1. Accordingly, each of the claims is dismissed.
- Heading
- Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Foxton This judgment is set out under the following headings
- The parties
- The issues raised by the parties
- The legislative history
- The LFRA 2024
- Article 1 of the First Protocol – the legal principles The approach of UK courts to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
- The structure of A1P1
- James v United Kingdom
- Strasbourg jurisprudence after James
- Are the effects of the wasting asset problem priced into the premia for residential leaseholds?
- Proportionality in domestic law – general principles
- Assessing the aims of a measure and its justification
- The width of the margin of appreciation
- General rules or bright lines
- Less intrusive measures
- The ab ante principle
- Indirect discrimination
- The requirement for compensation to be reasonably related to the value of the property taken
- The concept of market value
- The evolution of the measures under challenge
- The Law Commission embarks on a further leasehold reform project
- Contributions from Government and Parliament
- The Law Commission Consultation Paper No.238
- Further Government and Parliamentary activity
- The Law Commission Valuation Report (No.387)
- CMA involvement
- The Law Commission Enfranchisement Report (No.392)
- The Government moves towards legislation
- The Impact Assessment
- The Bill
- The ECHR Memorandum
- Engagement by the claimants in the reform process
- After the LFRA 2024 was enacted
- Estimates of the impact of the measures The material before the court
- The challenge to the IA and Addendum IA
- The aims of the measures The rival cases as to the objects of the LFRA 2024
- The legislation
- Hansard
- The statutory interventions prior to the LFRA 2024
- The material from 2016 to the enactment of the LFRA 2024
- Conclusions as to objects
- Are the measures rationally connected with the identified objects?
- The Ground Rent Cap
- The background
- Whether the objects which the Ground Rent Cap was intended to achieve could have been achieved by a less intrusive measure
- The “fair balance” assessment
- Conclusion
- The Marriage Value Reform
- Marriage value and the problem of the tenant’s lease as a wasting asset
- Consideration of marriage value in documents leading to the LFRA 2024
- Aims
- The claimants’ arguments on the justification for the Marriage Value Reform
- Whether the objects which the Marriage Value Reform was intended to achieve could have been achieved by a less intrusive measure
- The “fair balance” assessment
- The submissions of John Lyon’s Charity on the Marriage Value Reform
- Conclusion
- The Costs Recovery Reform
- Aims and justification
- Fair balance assessment
- Conclusion
- The cumulative effect of the measures
- Whether the non-exclusion of charities from the measures violates A1P1? Introduction
- Consideration of the effect of enfranchisement reform on charities prior to the enactment of the LFRA 2024
- The effect on landlords with charitable status
- The case for the Portal Trust Introduction
- The pre-legislative and legislative process
- The objects of the LFRA 2024
- Conclusions