header-logo header-logo

19 November 2021 / Jamie Sutherland , Imogen Dodds
Issue: 7957 / Categories: Features , Property , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-detail

Another landlord bites the crust

64420
Jamie Sutherland & Imogen Dodds consider intention in opposed business lease renewals
  • New decision on intention which landlord must prove to oppose business lease renewals on redevelopment or own occupation grounds. Macey v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Limited.
  • Court can reject landlord’s evidence of subjective intention without finding him dishonest.
  • Practitioners should consider how landlord’s firm and settled intention can be demonstrated.

Under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), a landlord can oppose a business tenant’s right to a renewal tenancy by relying on the grounds set out in section 30(1)(a)–(g). These include that, on the termination of the existing tenancy, the landlord intends to redevelop the premises (ground (f)) or intends to occupy the premises for a business to be carried on by him, or as his residence (ground (g)).

The High Court’s decision in Macey v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Limited [2021] EWHC 2847 (Ch), [2021] All ER (D) 03 (Nov) is the latest case to consider the nature of the intention

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll