Pumperninks of Piccadilly Ltd v Land Securities Plc and others: CA 10 May 2002

The tenant sought a renewed tenancy under the Act, and the landlord opposed it saying that the property was to be redeveloped. The tenant contended that since his was an ‘eggshell’ tenancy, having a tenancy of surfaces within the property and not any part of the structure of the building, his tenancy could not be required for the redevelopment.
Held: Following Heath, the test was what degree of access was reasonably required for the landlord to carry out the intended works. In this case, the works could not be carried out without obtaining possession in the sense of putting an end to the tenant’s legal right to possession under the new tenancy.


Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Chadwick and Mr Justice Charles


Times 30-May-2002, Gazette 13-Jun-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 621, [2002] 21 EG 142




Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(f)


England and Wales


CitedHeath v Drown HL 1973
The Landlord resisted a new tenancy under the 1954 Act saying that it intended to demolish and redevelop.
Held: The lease had provisions which would allow the landlord to do the works required without refusing a renewal. It should be renewed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171246