header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Another landlord bites the crust

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
19 November 2021 / Jamie Sutherland , Imogen Dodds
Issue: 7957 / Categories: Features , Property , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-detail
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

Read All
Sponsored by
Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
NLJ this week: How not to plead a schedule of loss
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll