The landlord hoped to redevelop a site. The defendant was in possession as a business tenant pursuant to three successive leases for which orders had been made under section 38(4) of the 1954 Act excluding the operation of sections 24 to 28 of the Act. The last of the three leases expired on October 31 1983. The parties were then involved in a succession of negotiations for a series of extensions. The defendant paid rent monthly in advance, in general accordance with the terms of the successive extensions.
Held: Where an agreement required an application first to court for an exclusion of protection under the 1954 Act, each side would, until such a hearing, be free to turn away from the transaction. The continuing negotiations meant that this remained a tenancy at will. Once the court took into account the parties’ knowledge of the operation of the 1954 Act, it was clear that they did not intend to create a periodic tenancy pending the grant, which both sides anticipated, of a tenancy approved by the court under section 38. Nor was there any compelling reason why the court should impute such an intention to them if, as was factually perfectly possible, they gave no serious thought to the legal repercussions of the payment and acceptance of rent.
Knox J said: ‘. . . there is, in my judgment, implicit in a condition that the tenancy agreement negotiated between the parties should be subject to the making of a court order under section 38(4) of the 1954 Act, a term that unless and until the court order is obtained no legally binding grant or acceptance of the tenancy should be made.’
Knox J
[1986] 1 WLR 368, [1986] 2 EGLR 57, [1986] 3 All ER 633
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
England and Wales
Cited by:
Applied – Taylor v Inntrepreneur Estates Limited QBD 30-Jan-2001
The claimant had entered into the ‘The Royal Albert’ public house under a tenancy management agreement. They later negotiated for a contracted out business tenancy. They sought now to appeal a strike out of their claim for a secure tenancy.
Cited – Clear Channel United Kingdom Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 14-Oct-2004
The claimant sought a declaration that it had a tenancy for its occupation by an advertising station, and that it had protection under the 1954 Act. The defendant council said that only a licence had been granted.
Held: The grants included the . .
Cited – Javad v Aqil CA 15-May-1990
P in possession – tenancy at will Until Completion
A prospective tenant was allowed into possession and then made periodic payments of rent while negotiations proceeded on the terms of a lease to be granted to him. The negotiations broke down.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. It was inferred . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 15 January 2022; Ref: scu.216563
