The ‘continuous occupation’ required of a tenant to support a claim for disturbance on the non-renewal of his lease under the Act is not to be lost for the normal incidents of business life. The tenant had anticipated the non-renewal of the tenancy and had closed his restaurant business in the last few weeks before the tenancy ended.
Held: It was unnecessary, in establishing rights under the 1954 Act, that there should be any physical presence in the premises, provided the premises were being used in connection with a business activity.
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘whenever business premises are empty for only a short period, whether mid-term or before or after trading at either end of the lease, I would be disinclined to find that the business occupancy has ceased (or not started) for that period provided always that during it there exists no rival for the role of business occupant and that the premises are not being used for some other, non-business purpose. That to my mind is how Part II of the 1954 Act should operate in logic and in justice. It has nothing to do with the de minimis principle. Rather it is a recognition that the tenant’s business interests will not invariably require permanent physical possession throughout the whole term of the lease and he ought not to have to resort to devices like storage of goods or token visits to satisfy the statutory requirements of continuing occupation. If, of course, premises are left vacant for a matter of months, the court would be readier to conclude that the thread of continuity has been broken.’
Judges:
Simon Brown LJ, Ward LJ, Moore-Bick J
Citations:
Times 03-Mar-1998, Gazette 25-Mar-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 308, [1998] 2 All ER 241, [1998] 1 WLR 1313, (1999) 78 P and CR 276, [1998] L and TR 151, [1998] 3 EGLR 157
Links:
Statutes:
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 38(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Graysim Holdings Ltd v P and O Property Holdings Ltd HL 24-Nov-1995
A market hall had been let to a tenant under a lease. The tenant fitted out the entire hall with stalls and entered into agreements with the stallholders, by which they paid the tenant a rent and service charge for services provided by the tenant. . .
Cited – Wandsworth London Borough Council v Singh CA 1991
The Local Authority were lessees of some 500 square metres of public open space at St. Johns Hill in Wandsworth, which they and their horticultural sub-contractors visited periodically. It had been used by local inhabitants for leisure and . .
Cited – I and H Caplan Limited v Caplan No. 2 ChD 1963
For some months whilst the tenants’ right to a new tenancy was being litigated they had ceased trading and had vacated the premises. They then succeeded before the Court of Appeal and started trading from the premises afresh. Their protection under . .
Cited – Morrison’s Holdings Limited v Manders Limited CA 1976
The tenants had to cease trading after a fire next door. They asked the landlords to reinstate and said they wished then to resume trading. Following the landlord’s demolition and reconstruction of the premises the tenants sought a new tenancy.
Cited – Hancock and Willis v GMS Syndicate Limited CA 1983
The solicitor tenants moved to larger premises and for six months licensed the subject premises to others save for the wine cellar and save that they reserved to themselves the right to use the dining area twice a month.
Held: The thread of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Pointon York Group Plc v Poulton CA 13-Jul-2006
The lease included a right to use seven designated parking spaces. The parties disputed whether parking space could be occupied in such a way as to be given protection under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Held: A parking space is an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.143786