The question which arises on this appeal is whether it is open to the landlord to oppose the grant of a new business tenancy if the works which he says that he intends to carry out have no purpose other than to get rid of the tenant and would not be undertaken if the tenant were to leave voluntarily.
Held: ‘ Just as the landlord’s motive or purpose, although irrelevant in themselves, may be investigated at trial as evidence for the genuineness of his professed intention to carry out the works, so also they may be relevant as evidence of the conditional character of that intention. In both cases, the landlord’s motive and purpose are being examined only because inferences may be drawn from them about his real intentions. Likewise, although the statutory test does not depend on the objective utility of the works, a lack of utility may be evidence from which the conditional character of the landlord’s intention may be inferred.’
Lady Hale (President), Lord Sumption, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin,
,
Lord Sumption, Lady Black, Lord Briggs, Lord Kitchin
[2018] UKSC 62, [2019] 2 All ER 463, [2019] L and TR 8, [2019] 1 P and CR DG14, [2019] AC 249, [2018] WLR(D) 778, [2018] 3 WLR 1952, [2018] Bus LR 2504, UKSC 2017/0151
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 10 17 am Video, SC 2018 10 17 pm Video
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 30(1)(f) 31A
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Marquess of Salisbury v Gilmore 1942
the test for the application of section 18(1) depended on the intention of the landlord at the time when the tenancy came to an end . .
Cited – Cunliffe v Goodman CA 1950
Action for damages for breach of a repairing covenant on the expiry of a lease. The court looked at the intention required of a landlord to show an intended purpose to oppose renewal of a lease. Asquith LJ said: ‘An ‘intention’ to my mind connotes a . .
Overruled – Atkinson v Bettison CA 1955
A landlord purchased the reversion of a lease of a shop the building on three floors, and two years later, the tenancy being near its end, the tenant applied to the county court for the grant of a new tenancy under the landlord and Tenant Act 1954 . .
Cited – Fisher v Taylors Furnishing Stores Ltd CA 1956
In September 1955 the landlords bought to adjoining shops which were about 250 years old and near the end of their life. They intended to undertake the demolition of the premises for which it was necessary to obtain possession, to rebuild on the . .
Cited – Housleys Ltd v Bloomer-Holt Ltd CA 1966
Tenants who used the premises which consisted of a yard, partly covered with cinders, on which stood only a wooden garage, covered about one-third of the site and a brick boundary wall adjacent to the highway for business purposes, applied for a new . .
Cited – Betty’s Cafe Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd HL 1958
On a renewal of a tenancy a landlord’s counter-notice under section 26(6) relied on section 30(1)(f) and (g).
Held: (Lord Keith dissenting) The court was bound to have regard to the position as it was on the date of the order. The landlord . .
Cited – Decca Navigator Co Ltd v Greater London Council CA 1974
Stephenson LJ said: ‘The question for the court is not, were the landlords reasonable in intending to do the particular work defined in the drawing? But, were they, having genuinely formed that intention, reasonable in dispossessing the tenants . .
Cited – W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 12-Mar-1981
The taxpayers used schemes to create allowable losses, and now appealed assessment to tax. The schemes involved a series of transactions none of which were a sham, but which had the effect of cancelling each other out.
Held: If the true nature . .
Cited – Blackburn v Hussain CA 1988
The landlord served notice under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 terminating the business tenancy of a shop, which was used as a cafe and was one of three contained in a single building owned by the Landlord, and stating that he would . .
Cited – Turner v Wandsworth London Borough Council CA 1994
The landlord opposed the grant of a new lease, saying that he wanted to demolish the premises. It was known that he wanted to dispose of the premises at a later date. The judge found that the intention to demolish was genuine but that it was . .
Cited – Al-Malik Carpets (Private) Ltd v London Buildings (Highgate) Ltd ChD 1999
. .
Cited – Majorstake Ltd v Curtis HL 6-Feb-2008
The tenant had served a notice under the 2003 Act to acquire a new lease. The landlord in replying that he wished to redevelop the site, sought himself to define the extent of the ‘estate’ to include only the tenant’s apartment and a neighbouring . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.630952
