![[2025] EWHC 2751 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Heading
AC-2024-LON-002830
AC-2024-LON-002865
AC-2024-LON-002875
AC-2024-LON-002904
AC-2024-LON-002913
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Before :
LORD JUSTICE HOLGATE
MR. JUSTICE FOXTON
Between :
THE KING (on the application of)
(1) ARC TIME FREEHOLD INCOME AUTHORISED FUND, A SUB-FUND OF ARC TIME: FUNDS, ACTING THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED CORPORATE DIRECTOR, ALPHA REAL CAPITAL LLP & OTHERS [AC-2024-LON-002865] (2) CADOGAN GROUP LIMITED & GROSVENOR LIMITED & OTHERS [AC-2024-LON-002875] (3) ABACUS LAND 1 (HOLDCO 1) LIMITED & OTHERS [AC-2024-LON-002830] (4) WALLACE PARTNERSHIP GROUP LIMITED & OTHERS [AC-2024-LON-002913] (5) JOHN LYON'S CHARITY [AC-2024-LON-002817] (6) TRUSTEES OF THE PORTAL TRUST [AC-2024-LON-002904] | Claimants |
- and - | |
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT - and - THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS | Defendant Intervener |
Monica Carss-Frisk KC, Jason Pobjoy KC, Christopher Knight and Emmeline Plews (instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP) for the First Claimant
James Maurici KC and Natasha Jackson (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP) for the Second Claimant
Stephen Jourdan KC and Malcolm Birdling (instructed by Fieldfisher LLP) for the Third Claimant
Victoria Wakefield KC, Julia Smyth KC and Harry Balfour-Lynn (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP) for the Fourth Claimant
Edward Fitzgerald KC, Sam Jacobs and James Fieldsend (instructed by Howard Kennedy LLP) for the Fifth Claimant
Martin Westgate KC and Sarah Steinhardt (instructed by Gunnercooke LLP) for the Sixth Claimant
Sir James Eadie KC, Richard Moules KC, Mark Loveday, Ellodie Gibbons, Hafsah Masood, Hugh Flanagan, Charles Streeten, Saara Idelbi, Robyn Cunningham, Emma Mockford, Katherine Elliot, Naomi Hart and Ruth Keating (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
Sarah Hannett KC and Katy Sheridan (instructed by Office of Speaker’s Counsel) for the Intervener
Hearing dates: 15, 16, 17 and 18 July 2025
Further written submissions: 9 August 2025
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 24 October 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
- 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