[2025] EWHC 2751 (Admin)

The aims of the measures

Ms Wakefield (who advanced this aspect of the argument on behalf of all of the claimants) submitted that the object of the LFRA 2024 was “making it cheaper and easier for those who live in the relevant flat or house (i.e. owner-occupiers) to enfranchise”. Ms Wakefield accepted that reducing the cost of enfranchising, and simplifying the process, were distinct objects of the legislation, but in each case she contended that this was only for the benefit of owner-occupiers. Ms Wakefield submitted that the wider effect of the LFRA 2024 did not reflect a wider object, but what she referred to as “mechanistic” issues: difficulties of differentiation between different types of tenant and the risk of unintended consequences in doing so if the scope of the legislation had been confined in its operation to the owner-occupiers which it was aimed at.

Sir James Eadie submitted that the LFRA 2024 has several legitimate aims, with an overriding theme. The legislation sought to “address the unfairness of the leasehold system”, which arose from the tenant’s wasting asset and lack of security and control, and to enable tenants to deal with those inherently unfair features of leasehold as a form of property interest by making enfranchisement cheaper and easier. Both of these aims reflect an overall intention:

“to address these issues and reform leasehold enfranchisement in order to rebalance power in the market and empower leaseholders, whilst maintaining the legitimate right of freeholders.”

It will be apparent that while the claimants suggested that the objective of the LFRA 2024 was to improve the position of a particular type of tenant, the Secretary of State suggested that its purpose was to address the inherent unfairness in leasehold property ownership generally.