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 the 1954 Act was again challenged because of the interruption.
Held: Though it was ‘distinctly a border-line case’, the ‘thread of continuity’ was not broken. Cross J said: ‘I think it is quite clear that a tenant does not lose the protection of this Act simply by ceasing physically to occupy the premises. They may well continue to be occupied for the purposes of the business although they are de facto empty for some period of time. One rather obvious example would be if there was a need for urgent structural repairs and the tenant had to go out of physical occupation in order to enable them to be effected. Another example would be that which the Court of Appeal had to deal with in Teasdale v Walker [1958] 1 WLR 1076.’


Cross J


[1963] 1 WLR 124


Landlord and Tenant Act 1954


CitedTeasdale v Walker CA 1958
The tenant sought protection under the 1954 Act for his lease of premises which he only occupied during the seasonal periods: they were closed and empty in the winter and only used in the summer.
Held: That was sufficient to create a protected . .

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 . .
CitedMorrison’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.
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: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.216544