Natasha Rees analyses the courts’ continuing quest to define what a house is
The long-awaited decisions in two appeals—known collectively as “Hosebay”—have finally been handed down by the Supreme Court. The appeals, brought by two central London landed estates—the Day Estate and the Howard De Walden Estate—were challenging an earlier Court of Appeal decision that a property used for commercial purposes could qualify as a “house” for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967). The Supreme Court, in Day v Hosebay Ltd, Lexgorge Ltd v Howard de Walden Estates Ltd [2012] UKSC 41, unanimously allowed both appeals.
In an earlier judgment on this issue, Lewison LJ said the word “house” was one of the 200 most frequently used words in the English language. It does seem slightly excessive, therefore, that it has been necessary to ask seven justices of the Supreme Court to determine its meaning. The main reason for this is because the house test, when it was originally formulated, was based on the tenant being resident in the building. The question of whether a building was a “house”
