On 6th February 2008 opinions were handed down by the House of Lords in the case of Majorstake Limited v Curtis. What was significant is that it is the first judgment to be made by them under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

The court found for the tenant, Mr. Curtis, on an application to extend the lease of his flat. The decision of the Central London County Court was affirmed and that of the Court of Appeal overturned.

The landlords, Majorstake Limited, relied upon Section 47 of the 1993 Act in opposing the claim. This section provides a barrier to an application to extend the lease of a flat if the landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the whole or a substantial part of "any premises in which the flat is contained".

The landlord planned to combine the flat in question with the flat beneath to from a single duplex apartment over two floors.

The crucial issue that the House of Lords had to decide is what is meant by "any premises in which the flat is contained".

The landlords contended that this definition embraced any chosen part of the building, provided that part contained the tenant's flat and some other part of the building. Even if the other part of the building was no bigger than a broom cupboard that would be enough.

The House of Lords disagreed. Baroness Hale of Richmond said: "It seems to me clear that "any premises in which the flat is contained" must be an objectively recognisable physical space, something that the landlord, the tenant, the visitor or a prospective purchaser would recognise as 'premises'." On the facts of this particular case the relevant premises were the block in which the flat is contained.

Section 47 applies where the lease has less than five years to run when the tenant's claim is made. Leaseholders wishing to extend their leases during the tail-end of the term have now been provided with some protection if their landlords wish to resist the claim on the grounds that they plan to demolish or reconstruct.