header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
19 November 2021 / Jamie Sutherland , Imogen Dodds
Issue: 7957 / Categories: Features , Property , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-detail

Another landlord bites the crust

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll