The Appellant landlord appealed a decision that the Respondent tenant had the right as a tenant under a long lease to acquire the freehold of its building, because the building was at the date of service of notice of the claim a house “reasonably so called” within the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The judge had applied the proposition that circumstances would have to be such that nobody could reasonably call the building a house for a judge to hold that it was not a house. The appeal was allowed as the judge had applied the proposition without taking full account of all the relevant circumstances and had paid insufficient attention to the exceptional circumstance of prescribed and predominant office use which was the decisive feature of the case, not its design and appearance.