The landlord rented the apartments and garages to the tenants. Later, he leased the airspace above the apartments and garages to a developer. The developer intended to build an apartment on each of the garage blocks. However, the tenants disputed the fact that the landlord had rented the roof and airspace to them and therefore was not entitled to lease it to the developer. As such, the tenants argued that the developer had no right to develop the airspace. The owner on the sixth floor argued that his additional lease degraded not only the airspace up to the height of the sixth-floor apartment, but also the airspace above, including the adjacent approach to the apartment on the seventh floor. This allows the owner of the sixth floor to use the roof of his crop as a roof terrace or even to build it (subject to the owner`s agreement). Alternatively, argued the owner of the sixth-floor apartment, even though the decline of the additional lease was limited vertically to the height of the sixth-floor apartment, it still owned the roof of the extension building that had been built. On this basis, neither the owner nor the owner of the seventh floor apartment can use it and the lease agreement to the owner of your jake can only take effect in reverse. Some have argued that Lord Justice Lewison did not specify how the airspace above a building and the basement below could include « common areas, » but according to his analysis, it is certainly not possible to manage a building (including the roof) unless you have the right to go to the roof to repair and maintain it, which means that the roof and airspace above must be subject to common areas and the successful collective requirement by existing tenants and thus potentially the development of roof and sterilization airspace.

In Dartmouth Court Blackheath Ltd/Berisworth [2008] EWHC 350 (Ch), [2008] EWHC 350 (Ch), [2008] 2 P – CR 3. In this case, it was a space comprising a block of 72 apartments with a garage block, paths and gardens. The licensee granted a lease of airspace over the roof of the block, as well as other areas, including basements, without prior disclosure in accordance with Part I of the 1987 Act. The tenants applied to the court for an order requiring them to acquire the tenancy agreement. One of the questions Warren J. had to ask was whether the right to a first refusal applied to the airspace above the roof. He considered that this was the case for two alternative reasons. First, the airspace above the roof must be at least up to the height of the chimneys and therefore, in the sense of « construction, » as used in the law, because « this is an important part of the space by which any owner of the main building must have appropriate access rights with repair obligations. » Second, he said that if his first ground was incorrect, the airspace was a common part of the exterior of the building.