Bennets Courtyard v Bennets Courtyard Airspace: High Court Clarifies Who the “Reversioner” Is During the Registration Gap

The High Court decision in Bennets Courtyard Limited v Bennets Courtyard Airspace Limited [2026] EWHC 1119 (Ch) provides an important reminder on the risks that can arise during the “registration gap” in a property transfer and who counts as the “reversioner” and therefore the person upon who any formal notice must be served.

While the case arose in the context of a collective enfranchisement claim, its practical message is much wider: when serving any formal property notice, parties should take particular care to check the Land Registry position and identify the correct legal recipient at the date of service.

For landlords, developers and leaseholders alike, the ruling highlights the critical importance of Land Registry status at the date a notice is served, as well as the potentially severe consequences of getting it wrong.

Summary: Key Point

The High Court confirmed that the “reversioner” when a formal notice is served is the registered proprietor at the HM Land Registry at the date the notice is served, not the equitable owner (who may have only recently bought the property).

Background to the Case

Tenants residing in a 52-flat development at Watermill Way in Wimbledon, SW19 London, served an enfranchisement notice in December 2022.

Crucially, the tenants served their enfranchisement notice on Bennets Courtyard Freehold Limited, the company to which the freehold had recently been transferred from Long Term Reversions (Dulwich).

However, the transfer to BCFL from the previous owners had not yet been registered at the Land Registry, meaning that the transferee was not the registered proprietor at the date of service of the notice. A County Court ruling initially dismissed the appellants’ claim on this basis and the case was appealed in the High Court.

What did the High Court confirm?

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed a clear principle:

The “person who owns the freehold” for the purposes of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 is the registered proprietor at HM Land Registry at the date the initial notice is served.

This remains the case even where a transfer of the freehold has already completed but has not yet been registered at the Land Registry.

In other words:

Legal ownership (as shown on the register), not equitable ownership, determines who must be served during the registration gap.

Whilst this finding was made in the context of the 1993 act, it emphasises a broader principle of practical importance: the land register is central to determining who should receive formal notice in many property scenarios.

What is the “registration gap” and why does it matter?

The “registration gap” is the period between:

• Completion of a property transfer; and
• The Land Registry updating the title to reflect the new owner

During this period, the buyer may be the equitable owner, but legal title remains with the registered proprietor.

This distinction proved decisive in the case of Bennets Courtyard, where:

• The freehold had been transferred
• Registration had not completed
• The enfranchisement notice was served on the transferee (not the registered owner)

The court held that this was invalid service because the notice had not been served on the correct statutory “reversioner”.

Why the appeal failed: registration gap and valid service

The appellant argued that serving the equitable owner should be sufficient because:

• The transfer had already completed
• The transferee was, in substance, the owner of the freehold

However, the High Court rejected this argument and prioritised:

• Certainty of the Land Register
• The statutory wording in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, particularly in relation to the definition of the reversioner being “the person who owns the freehold” (schedule 1 1993 Act).

The court held that allowing equitable ownership to dictate validity would create uncertainty and undermine the effectiveness of the statutory process.

This focus on certainty is equally relevant when considering the validity of other property notices, where strict compliance with service requirements is often essential.

Key takeaways for landlords

1. Registration status controls legal rights

Even after completion, landlords do not acquire full legal standing until registration is complete. Timing is therefore critical.

2. Risk of missed or invalid notices

If an enfranchisement notice is served during the registration gap:

• The registered proprietor may need to act quickly
• Failure to monitor this period could result in missed deadlines or disputes

Similar risks may arise in relation to other formal notices (for example, LTA 1954 notices or break notices), depending on who is required to receive notice under the relevant statutory or contractual framework.

3. Transaction planning is essential

Where a freehold transfer is anticipated:

• Consider whether any enfranchisement or lease extension activity is likely
• Build protections into the transaction, such as contractual provisions around notices

Key takeaways for tenants and nominee purchasers

1. Serve the correct legal owner without fail

This case reinforces that tenants should:

• Check the Land Registry title at the point of serving an enfranchisement notice
• Not make assumptions based on completion or ownership arrangements

2. Errors cannot easily be cured

The court confirmed that:

• Serving the wrong party may invalidate the notice entirely
• Later changes in ownership do not retrospectively fix a mistake in the serving of an enfranchisement notice

3. Due diligence is critical

Before serving a Section 13 notice (the initial notice to kickstart the statutory collective enfranchisement process), tenants should:

• Review up-to-date Land Registry entries
• Investigate pending transfers or applications
• Ensure all relevant parties are correctly identified

What Will Bennets Courtyard v Bennets Courtyard Airspace change for registration gap notices?

The High Court’s decision will likely lead to:

• More cautious service of notices, with increased verification checks
• Greater reliance on Land Registry searches immediately before service
• Potential disputes where notices are served during periods of title transition

More generally, it reinforces the importance of the Land Registry as the starting point for identifying who should receive formal notice across property matters.

It also reinforces a wider trend in case law in that statutory enfranchisement rights are applied strictly, and procedural errors can have significant consequences.

How Napthens can support

Collective enfranchisement claims are procedurally complex and increasingly technical. However, issues arising from the registration gap and the valid service of notices extend well beyond enfranchisement claims. The Bennets Courtyard decision highlights how even seemingly minor issues, such as timing and registration status, can determine the outcome.

Napthens’ commercial property and commercial property litigation teams work together to provide joined‑up advice to landlords and tenants. Our solicitors can support both landlords and tenants with:

• Conducting title investigations and Land Registry checks
• Advising on registration gap risks in property transactions
• Preparing and serving formal notices in relation to property
• Resolving disputes relating to invalid notices or competing claims

Get in touch today to discuss your requirements.