header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 August 2024 / Edward Peters KC , Ashpen Rajah
Issue: 8083 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Property , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-detail

Landlord & tenant update

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
185051
A zoo that never materialised, misrepresented restaurant ventures & the question of a tenant’s ‘principal’ home. Edward Peters KC & Ashpen Rajah discuss three useful new cases
  • Case one: when and how waiver of forfeiture can take place.
  • Case two: opposition by misrepresentation, where a commercial landlord was held to be liable to its former tenant, McDonald’s, under s 37A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
  • Case three: the question of whether residential premises are a tenant’s ‘only or principal home’.

The steady stream of new landlord and tenant authorities flows apace, as it has done for centuries; and from the almost infinite variety of disputes that can arise between landlords and tenants, we have selected three interesting and useful new cases on the following legal issues: the ever-important, but sometimes overlooked, law of waiver of forfeiture; opposing a Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 business tenancy renewal by misrepresentation; and how to establish whether a dwelling constitutes a tenant’s ‘home’ and ‘principal home’.

Waiver of forfeiture:

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