Written by Katherine Thorpe, Enfranchisement Lawyer. Brady Solicitors advises freeholders, managing agents, RTM companies and leaseholders on Building Safety Act compliance, service charge disputes, and remediation proceedings.
A recent High Court decision has confirmed a point that every leaseholder considering collective enfranchisement needs to understand: when you serve your initial notice, you must serve it on the registered proprietor shown at HM Land Registry, not someone who may have recently bought the freehold but has not yet been registered.
The case, Bennets Courtyard Limited v Bennets Courtyard Airspace Limited [2026] EWHC 1119 (Ch), involved 32 qualifying leaseholders in a 52-flat development at Watermill Way in Wimbledon. The leaseholders served their section 13 initial notice in December 2022, but they served it on the wrong party. That single error was enough to invalidate their entire claim.
What happened?
The freehold of the building had recently been transferred from the original freeholder (Long Term Reversions (Dulwich) Limited, or “LTR”) to a leaseholder-controlled company called Bennets Courtyard Freehold Limited (“BCFL”). The transfer completed in September 2022, and an application to register it at the Land Registry was made in October 2022.
However, when the leaseholders served their initial notice on 22 December 2022, that registration had not yet been completed. LTR was still the name on the register.
The leaseholders served their notice on BCFL, the new owner, rather than LTR, the registered proprietor. The building’s airspace leaseholder challenged the validity of the notice, and the County Court agreed that it was invalid. The leaseholders appealed.
What did the High Court decide?
Mr Justice Trower dismissed the appeal. He confirmed that “the person who owns the freehold of those premises” in Schedule 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 means the registered proprietor at the Land Registry at the date you serve your initial notice.
It does not matter that the freehold has already been transferred. It does not matter that the buyer has applied for registration and that, once registered, the transfer will be backdated under section 74 of the Land Registration Act 2002. Until that registration is complete, the legal owner remains the person on the register.
The court considered several arguments from the leaseholders:
The retrospective effect of registration. Section 74 of the Land Registration Act 2002 means that, once registered, a transfer takes effect from the date the application was made. The leaseholders argued this meant the new owner should be treated as having been the legal owner all along. The court rejected this. Section 74 fixes the effective date of registration once registration has been completed. It does not change who the legal owner was at the time a notice was served, particularly when there remains a possibility (however small) that the registration application could fail.
Information-gathering powers. The leaseholders pointed to the various ways they could have found out about the transfer, including their rights to request information under section 11 of the 1993 Act. The court accepted these provisions exist, but said they do not go far enough to make equitable ownership a reliable basis for identifying who to serve. Requiring leaseholders to investigate equitable interests would make the enfranchisement process more complex and expensive, which runs counter to the purpose of the legislation.
Estoppel. After the notice was served, the airspace leaseholder applied to be appointed as the reversioner and served a counter-notice, both steps that assumed the original notice was valid. The leaseholders argued the airspace leaseholder was therefore prevented from later claiming the notice was invalid. The court agreed that the conduct was an unequivocal representation, but the leaseholders had produced no evidence that they had relied on that conduct to their detriment. Without detrimental reliance, the estoppel argument failed.
Retrospective appointment as reversioner. The court also rejected the argument that a person appointed as reversioner after the initial notice was served could be treated as if they had always held that role. The natural meaning of “the reversioner” in section 13 is the person who holds that position at the moment the notice is given.
Why does this matter for leaseholders?
1. Check the Land Registry immediately before serving your notice. Do not rely on earlier searches. Title information can change, and pending applications may not be visible in full. An official copy of the register obtained as close as possible to the date of service gives you the clearest picture of who the registered proprietor is.
2. Do not assume that a recently completed transfer means the buyer is the right person to serve. Even if you know the freehold has been sold, serve your notice on the registered proprietor unless and until registration is complete.
3. Consider timing. If you know a freehold transfer is in progress, it may be worth waiting until registration is complete before serving your notice. Alternatively, if there is urgency, serve on the registered proprietor and ensure that copies of the notice also reach any known transferee, though the court was clear that a copy alone, received indirectly, does not satisfy the statutory requirement.
4. We do suggest taking legal advice before serving the notice. Collective enfranchisement is procedurally demanding. The identity of the reversioner, the content of the notice, and the manner of service all have strict requirements. An error at any stage can be fatal to the claim.
How to protect your claim
The court endorsed a practical point from the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in Assethold [2024]. A buyer who completes on the purchase of a freehold but has not yet been registered can protect its position by ensuring the transfer documentation requires the seller to pass on any notices received and to act on the buyer’s instructions during the registration gap.
This is good conveyancing practice in any event, but it is particularly important where the building contains residential leaseholders who may be planning an enfranchisement claim.
The broader principle
While Bennets Courtyard arose in the context of collective enfranchisement, its reasoning reflects a wider principle in property law: where a statute requires a formal notice to be served on a freeholder, it is the legal owner, the person on the register, who matters. This is consistent with earlier decisions concerning notices to quit (Stodday Land Ltd v Pye [2016]), break notices (Brown & Root [2001]), and right-to-manage claims (159-167 Prince of Wales Road RTM Co Ltd v Assethold Ltd [2024]).
For leaseholders, the lesson is simple. The Land Registry register is your starting point and, in most cases, your finishing point too. Check it, rely on it, and serve your notice on the person it names.
