The plenary session of the court unanimously confirmed that even if it can be shown such enfranchisement deprives a natural or legal person of their "peaceful enjoyment of their possessions"[n 1] the above procedure is in the public interest and strictly subject to the conditions provided for by the law of England and Wales.

It enables leasehold houses to be converted, without objection, to freeholds (also known as "enfranchised") if the occupier (commonly considered the owner as a matter of practice under English long leases but not in law) follows a procedure.

The procedure includes payment of the theoretical value on the market for that freehold (if sold to a third party subject to the remaining occupier's term of years — the lease).

Nonetheless, the compulsory transfer of property from one individual to another may, depending upon the circumstances, constitute a legitimate means for promoting the public interest.

The same may be said of certain other democratic countries; thus, the applicants and the Government cited in argument a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which concerned State legislation in Hawaii compulsorily transferring title in real property from lessors to lessees in order to reduce the concentration of land ownership (Hawaii Housing Authority v Midkiff 104 S.Ct.2321 [1984]).

The aim of the 1967 Act, as spelt out in the 1966 White Paper, was to right the injustice which was felt to be caused to occupying tenants by the operation of the long leasehold system of tenure (see paragraph 18 above).

The Act was designed to reform the existing law, said to be "inequitable to the leaseholder", and to give effect to what was described as the occupying tenant’s "moral entitlement" to ownership of the house (ibid.