Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal Court of Appeal Redefines 'Building' for Tenant...

Priority review Enforcement Amended Final

Court of Appeal Redefines 'Building' for Tenant Right of First Refusal

Inner Temple Library Current Awareness

Filed March 23rd, 2026

Detected March 25th, 2026

Summary

The Court of Appeal for England and Wales has redefined the term 'building' under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, impacting tenants' right of first refusal. This decision overturns a previous High Court ruling and provides new guidance on how property disposals must be handled when multiple buildings are involved.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Court of Appeal has issued a significant ruling in SGL1 Ltd v FSV Freeholders Ltd, redefining the term 'building' as it applies to the tenant's right of first refusal under Section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. This decision overturns a prior High Court judgment concerning the Fox Street Village development in Liverpool, which comprised multiple blocks of flats. The court's interpretation will affect how landlords must sever transactions involving multi-building properties, potentially invalidating previous notices and requiring new offers to tenants.

This ruling has immediate practical implications for landlords and tenants involved in property disposals where the premises consist of multiple distinct buildings. Compliance officers in real estate and property management should review existing procedures and any pending transactions to ensure they align with the Court of Appeal's clarified definition of 'building' and the requirements for serving section 5 notices. Failure to comply could lead to invalid disposals and potential legal challenges from tenants seeking to exercise their right of first refusal.

What to do next

Review internal policies and procedures regarding tenant right of first refusal notices.
Assess current and upcoming property disposal transactions for compliance with the redefined 'building' definition.
Consult legal counsel on specific cases involving multi-building properties and section 5 notices.

Source document (simplified)

Out-Law / Your Daily Need-To-Know

OUT-LAW NEWS 3 min. read

Court of Appeal redefines 'building' under tenants' right of first refusal

23 Mar 2026, 2:52 pm

Follow Property
The Court of Appeal for England and Wales has overruled a longstanding High Court decision on the meaning of 'building' under the tenants' right of first refusal provisions, providing further guidance but also, exceptionally, inviting government intervention, an expert has said.

The case between SGL1 Ltd and FSV Freeholders Ltd concerned Fox Street Village, a residential development in Liverpool comprising five blocks. Block A was a refurbished warehouse with its own utilities, standing separately from the other blocks. Blocks B, C and E shared similar design, utilities, a single plant room and boiler, while Blocks C and E shared a single entrance and staircase. Block D had been demolished.

Under section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 a landlord proposing to dispose of the freehold of premises containing qualifying tenants' flats must first offer the premises to those tenants on the same terms. Where a disposal involves more than one building, section 5(3) requires the landlord to sever the transaction so as to deal with each building separately. The landlord served two section 5 notices — one for Block A and one for Blocks B, C and E. The qualifying tenants did not accept either offer and the freehold was sold. The tenants subsequently claimed the right to acquire the blocks, arguing that the notices were invalid because all the blocks constituted a single 'building' and should have been the subject of a single notice.

At first instance, the judge agreed with the tenants, following the 2005 High Court decision in a case between Long Acre Securities Ltd and Karet. In that case, the judge had found that the word 'building' under the 1987 Act could encompass one or more structures where the occupants of qualifying flats shared the use of premises such as yards, gardens, outhouses and communal areas. Although the Long Acre case was in fact answering a slightly different question, it has become a leading authority on the meaning of ‘building’ under the 1987 Act and when severing a transaction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and held that Long Acre was wrongly decided. It rejected the previous approach on several grounds, noting in particular that while section 5(3) requires a transaction to be severed so as to deal with each building separately, it does not dictate how amenity land must be parcelled. A landlord may choose to include shared amenity land with one building rather than another, or split it as it sees fit. Legal easements and quasi-easements over shared amenity areas will pass with the land, thus protecting the tenants. The court said the previous test represented "the tail wagging the dog".

The court acknowledged that it was difficult to formulate a single test for when separate structures constitute one 'building' but held that it may help to ask whether structures are within a "functionally integrated built envelope" — in other words, whether a structure could be unplugged from the rest of the development and stand on its own. Applying this test, the court found that Block A was a separate building, while Blocks B, C and E formed a single building because they shared a plant room, utilities, entrance and staircase, and Block B could not function independently without the installation of new plant and facilities. The section 5 notices served by the landlord were therefore valid.

Ian Morgan, a property dispute resolution expert with Pinsent Masons, said the ruling was welcome for bringing clarity to what could previously be a confusing test to administer. "The previous test for what was or was not a building could become quite technical and difficult to explain or justify. The court was faced with trying to reconcile 13 different factors just to work out whether something was or was not a building," he said. "The new judgment is likely to be easier to apply, but the treatment of communal areas will need to be given consideration up front, as relying on easements is all very well in legal theory but in practice, questions around who is responsible for managing those common parts, who gets paid and how much, are foreseeably likely to need working through. "

The decision gives landlords greater flexibility in structuring disposals of multi-block residential developments. The fact that occupants of different structures share the use of yards, gardens, car parks or other appurtenant premises does not necessarily mean those structures must be treated as a single 'building'. When serving section 5 notices, the landlord may have greater ability to decide what to include and may parcel shared amenity land with one building rather than another as commercial considerations dictate, allowing blocks to be marketed individually to different purchasers.

However, Ian Morgan said that the decision also raises questions for investors and landlords who have previously relied on Long Acre when putting in place leasehold structures.

“Those who are preparing to make a disposal of premises within scope of the 1987 Act or who may have section 5 notices currently in flight, may wish to seek advice - particularly since section 10A creates various offences for breach, without reasonable excuse,” he said.

“Lord Justice Lewison concluded the judgment by stating that there was no perfect answer under the 1987 Act and noted that the relevant Secretary of State has the power to make regulations in relation to various parts of the 1987 Act, and invited them to consider doing so.”

Ian Morgan Senior Associate

+44 (0) 746 940 0700 [email protected] View Profile

Latest News

2 hours ago

PFAS regulation in the EU

11 hours ago

Data centre projects in Ireland face legal challenge impact

11 hours ago

UK automotive decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation

11 hours ago

Data requests to support compensation claims can be refused

13 hours ago

Financial consumer protection changes shifting mass claims landscape in UK and Ireland

Know what’s coming, make better decisions

Stay ahead of events with our weekly digest of news and expert analysis, tailored for you

Sign-up

OUT-LAW ANALYSIS

Transparency should prevail on sports doping

Sports bodies should be able to ‘name and shame’ athletes in their sport responsible for doping offences without worrying about whether doing so will infringe those athletes’ data protection rights.

2 Oct 2025

Sport & Hospitality OUT-LAW NEWS

JCT 2024 updates offer ‘powerful tool’ to unlock construction disputes

Several recent changes to provisions in the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) suite of forms could help avoid disputes early on, an expert has said.

3 Oct 2025

Construction OUT-LAW NEWS

Independent internal investigations central to UK’s ‘failure to prevent fraud’ offence

Neil McInnes tells HRNews about conducting internal investigations into workplace fraud and how they differ from the usual disciplinary investigations.

2 Oct 2025

Employment