Back
Legal

W Barratt & Co, Ltd, and another v Harrison

Claim for new lease of Northampton shop premises — Amount of rent and period of lease — Fourteen years granted

Applications for a new lease under Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, were made at a special Northampton County Court on January 18, by two firms with adjacent premises in Abington Street, Northampton.

The two applicants were W Barratt & Co, Ltd, and J Hepworth & Son, Ltd. They were represented by Mr JP Widgery (instructed by Messrs Becke, Green and Stops, Northampton, and Messrs Hepworth & Chadwick, Leeds).

The respondent landlord was Mr Frank Harrison, trustee of the late Joseph Jelley, and was represented by Mr W Scrivens (instructed by Messrs Shoosmiths and Harrison).

Mr Widgery said the dispute between the parties concerned the amount of rent and the period of the new lease.

Dealing with Hepworths first, Mr Widgery said the current lease was for 21 years from March, 1935. The rent was £350 per annum for the first three years, £375 for the next seven and £400 for the remaining eleven years.

The tenants of this property had offered a rent of £875, while the landlord was claiming a figure of £1,500. Hepworths were asking for a lease of 14 years and the landlords sought a lease of seven, or 14 years with a revision after first seven.

In the case of Barratts the lease began in February, 1935, and was also for 21 years. The rent of these premises was £660 per annum throughout that period.

The landlord in this instance claimed a total of £1,750 pa and Barratts had offered £1,250 pa.

Mr RJ Blakemore, Estates Manager of Messrs Hepworth & Son, said he was staggered when he heard that £1,500 was being asked. Having described the premises and noted the shortcomings, he claimed that £875 was a fair figure.

Evidence for the applicants was also given by Mr Eric Phillip Cowell, Estate Manager of Barratts, Mr William Ellis Blundell, Commercial and Property Manager of Kendall & Sons, Ltd, and Mr Robert Cecil Wilson-Leary, Retail General Manager of Greenlees & Sons, Ltd.

The two last-named witnesses were invited to give their opinions of certain characteristics of the premises and express their view of a reasonable annual rent.

Technical evidence of the areas of the two shops was given by Mr Henry John Buckle, partner in Messrs Hales & Partners, 10 Duke Street, London, W1. He spoke of his valuation of the premises and the way he had arrived at his conclusions. Witness also submitted comparisons on other town premises.

Asking for a maximum seven years lease with a revision at the end of that time, Mr Scrivens contended that this was a fair proposition. The revision would mean that at the end of seven years the rent would be reviewed and be adjusted either up or down. The current market value of the properties could at that time, be determined by arbitration.

Rents proposed by the landlord were fixed as the result of expert advice and were not considered excessive.

The chance of revision at the end of seven years could be to the advantage of the tenants

Giving evidence on behalf of the landlord, Mr JCJ Legge, chartered auctioneer and estate agent, senior partner in the Northampton firm of Legge and Sismey, said premises in Abington Street were very much in demand. He considered the rents proposed by the landlord to be fair estimates of present day values.

Evidence for the landlord was also given by Mr TS Dulake, chartered surveyor, of Messrs Gerald Eve and Co, London, who submitted comparison with other town premises.

His Honour Judge AM Hamilton gave judgment on February 15. He ordered a new tenancy with an uninterrupted lease for 14 years and fixed the new rents as £1,025 per annum for Hepworths and £1,425 for Barratts.

Judge Hamilton said he had looked at the two premises. He was familiar with Abington Street as he was with all the main streets of the town.

He had listened to evidence about ‘so-called comparable properties’ but, he said ‘The ideal comparable property hardly ever exists.’

He was satisfied the rents and leases he fixed were reasonable ones.

Both sides would pay their own costs.

Up next…