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 continuity of occupation had been broken: ‘The words with which we are concerned import, in my judgment, an element of control and user and they involve the notion of physical occupation. That does not mean physical occupation every minute of the day, provided the right to occupy continues. But it is necessary for the judge trying the case to assess the whole situation where the element of control and use may exist in variable degrees. At the end of the day it is a question of fact for the tribunal to decide, treating the words as ordinary words in the way in which I have referred to them.’


Eveleigh LJ


[1983] 1 EGLR 70


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBacchiocchi v Academic Agency Limited CA 20-Feb-1998
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 . .
CitedEsselte Ab and British Sugar Plc v Pearl Assurance Plc CA 8-Nov-1996
The tenant was no longer in occupation of the demised premises when he served a s27 notice.
Held: A business tenancy ceases at end of the lease, if the premises are not actually occupied by the tenant despite any notices given. The occupation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.216547