Hansard
Hansard
When it became apparent that the claimants (in particular) wished to place passages from Hansard before the court in support of their arguments, permission was given to the Speaker of the House of Commons to intervene in the case. Constructive engagement between the Speaker’s legal team and the parties led to a significant narrowing of the issues as to what material the court could properly look at, and for what purpose. For those few passages which remained in issue, we had submissions from Ms Hannett KC and Ms Sheridan on the Speaker’s behalf, to which we have paid “careful regard” (R v Chaytor [2011] 1 AC 684, [16]).
Having reviewed that material, we do not consider that this is one of those cases where resort to Hansard is necessary to identify the objects of the LFRA 2024 for ECHR purposes, or that the Hansard references add materially to the information available from other sources as to the object of the LFRA 2024. We derived some limited assistance from the statement by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, when introducing the Bill to the House of Commons for its second reading on 11 December 2023 (Vol 742 col 655-656). He identified the purpose of the legislation as being to “liberate leaseholders from many of the unfair practises to which they are still subject”, stated leasehold “is essentially a deal where someone invited to buy a home and then, instead of becoming a full homeowner, they are treated, or can be treated as a tenant”, and described leasehold as “a fundamentally unfair system and a fundamentally inequitable tenure.”
The claimants relied upon a number of other statements, including those of Ms Rachel MacClean MP, who until November 2023 had been Minister of State at the relevant Department with responsibility for the Bill, but who was not in Government in December 2023. She stated at col.674 that the Bill would “restore true home ownership to millions, end rip-off charges and introduce fairness to the leasehold market”. Elsewhere she referred to “nearly 5 million homes” (i.e. a reference to the 4.98m leasehold properties in England, of which 57% were owned by owner-occupiers). This passage did not assist us in identifying the object of the LFRA 2024. Nor was there any passage which assisted in the speech of Mr Lee Rowley MP, Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, in closing the debate.
- 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
![[2025] EWHC 2751 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)