The landlord had opposed the renewal of the claimant’s business tenancies saying that it wished to redevelop the sites. Before the matter came to trial, the landlord went into administration, and the tenant sought summary judgment. It now appealed against refusal.
Held: The appeal failed. The date of the hearing at which the necessary intention must be shown to exist is always the date of the substantive trial of the landlord’s ground of objection. The case law pre-dated the availability of summary judgments under the CPR, and ‘ the essential nature of the summary judgment jurisdiction, which is to determine whether a party has a real prospect of establishing his cause of action (or defence as the case may be) at a future trial date. In most cases of course the facts relied on will have occurred at some previous date, so the issue at the summary judgment hearing in relation to those facts will be whether there is a real prospect that the evidence available at trial will be sufficient to establish that the alleged facts had already occurred. The ‘real prospect’ test is a forward-looking one (as the word ‘prospect’ itself implies), and means that the court is entitled to have regard to evidence that may realistically be expected to emerge between the date of the summary judgment hearing and the trial itself.’
At any summary judgment application the question to be considered is whether, looking forward to the anticipated date of trial, the landlord can show a real prospect of being able to establish the necessary intention at that future date. Insofar as it is necessary to show a reasonable prospect of being able to commence work by reference to a particular date, that date would also have to be determined by reference to the anticipated date of trial.
Judges:
David Cooke J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 2084 (Ch), [2010] WLR (D) 231, [2011] L and TR 8, [2010] 33 EG 71 (CS), [2010] 47 EG 142
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .
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 – Dutch Oven Ltd v Egham Estate and Investment Co Ltd ChD 1968
Megarry J was asked which was the relevant hearing when a court considered the condition of a landlord’s intention to redevelop premises to support a refusal of a new tenancy. He approved an application that the landlord’s ground of opposition be . .
Cited – Tanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald, Cameron-MacDonald CA 12-May-2000
The court gave detailed guidance on the application of the new procedures on civil appeals in private law cases introduced on May 2. Appeals from a County Court District Judge’s final decision in a multi-track case could now go straight to the Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.421364