[2025] EWHC 2751 (Admin)

Fecha: 24-Oct-2025

The issues raised by the parties

The issues raised by the parties

49.

The parties helpfully agreed a list of the substantive issues raised by the claims which we reproduce below. We identify the claimants pursuing each issue:

(1)

Aims: what are the aims of the three measures in the LFRA 2024 under challenge (ARC, C&G, Abacus, Wallace, John Lyon’s and Portal).

(2)

Marriage value (generally): Whether the exclusion of ‘marriage value’ from enfranchisement premiums, by s.37 and Sch. 4, para.17(3) of the LFRA 2024, is incompatible with A1P1 (ARC, C&G, Abacus, Wallace, John Lyon’s Charity and Portal).

(3)

Marriage value as regards charities: Whether the exclusion of ‘marriage value’ from enfranchisement premiums, by s.37 and Sch. 4, para.17(3) of the LFRA 2024, is incompatible with A1P1 insofar as it contains no exception(s) for charities (John Lyon’s Charity and Portal).

(4)

Cap on ground rents: Whether the introduction of a cap on existing ground rents in enfranchisement calculations at 0.1% of the FVPV, by s.37 and Sch. 4, para.26(4) of the LFRA 2024, is incompatible with A1P1 (ARC, C&G, Abacus, Wallace and Portal).

(5)

Recovery by landlords of non-litigation-costs: Whether the abolition of the statutory right for freeholders and any intermediate superior landlords to recover from tenants the reasonable non-litigation costs that the freeholders and superior landlords incur on enfranchisement and lease extension claims (subject to specified exceptions), by ss.38 and 39 of the LFRA 2024, is incompatible with A1P1 (ARC, Abacus and Portal).

(6)

Cumulative effects: whether the measures at (2), (4) and/or (5) above, as impugned by each claim, are jointly incompatible with A1P1 (ARC, C&G, Abacus, Wallace and Portal). In determining issues (2), (4), (5) and/or (6), as impugned by each claim, the claimants say that these issues must be judged in the light of the cumulative changes to the nature and scope of the leaseholders who may benefit from enfranchisement rights, and on what terms, as effected by successive Acts post the LRA 1967 up to and including ss. 29 and 32 of the LFRA 2024.

(7)

Exceptions: Whether each of the measures at (2) and (4) above is incompatible with A1PI and/or Art 14 taken together with A1P1 insofar as they contain no exception(s) (a) for charities or (b) to exclude from the new valuation regime arrangements of the kind that Portal has with SHA where the lessee is not a homeowner or consumer but holds their interest for business purposes (Portal).

(8)

Standing: Whether the Portal Trust has standing to bring its claim.

50.

By the time of the hearing before us, the defendant was no longer raising an issue as to Portal’s standing to bring its claim and so the court need not consider that matter.

51.

We attach to this judgment as Annex 2 the drafts of the DoIs sought by the claimants reflecting the issues set out above.

52.

Abacus also challenged para.17(2) of sched.4 to the LFRA 2024 which deals with intermediate leases. In response, the Government has agreed that there is a loophole which needs to be corrected by primary legislation. On 16 June 2025 the court made a consent order staying that part of the claim brought by Abacus.

The statutory framework