Business tenancy — Renewal application — Evidence — Landlord opposing renewal of business tenancy on ground of intention to use premises for own business — Tenant contending in closing submissions that business not carried on by landlord — Tenant appealing against grant of permission for landlord to adduce further evidence as to interest in business — Whether judge having discretion to admit further evidence — Section 30 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 — Appeal dismissed
The appellant held a business tenancy of premises. Upon the expiry of the tenant’s lease, the respondent landlord sought to terminate the tenancy by the procedure set out in Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The tenant issued proceedings to apply for a new tenancy pursuant to section 24(1) of the Act. The landlord opposed that application under ground (g) of section 30(1), namely that, upon termination of the tenancy, he intended to occupy the premises for the purposes of a business to be carried on by him.
A preliminary hearing was held on the issue of whether the landlord could prove ground (g). At the hearing, the landlord adduced no evidence as to his interest in the limited company that was to take up occupation of the premises. The company was a family business. Section 30(3) of the Act provided that a company could be a business carried on by a landlord where he held a controlling interest in it. In the course of closing submissions, the tenant contended for the first time that the landlord did not have a controlling interest in the company.
Subsequently, during the lunchtime adjournment, the landlord’s wife transferred to him the majority of the shares in the company, so that he obtained a controlling interest. The landlord then sought an adjournment and permission to adduce further evidence showing that he had such an interest. The judge considered the general rule that further evidence should not be admitted after the close of submissions, but granted permission, in exercise of his discretion under CPR 32.1, on the basis that the case was an exceptional one because the point relied upon by the claimant was largely technical and had been raised at a very late stage. At the later hearing, he found that the landlord’s objection to the grant of a new tenancy had been established.
The tenant appealed. He contended that the burden was upon the landlord to adduce sufficient evidence to prove his ground of opposition, that he had failed to do so, and that once closing submissions had ended it was too late to seek to adduce further evidence to strengthen his case.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Parties to proceedings were required to assist the courts in furthering the overriding objective in CPR 1.1 to deal with cases justly, by, inter alia, identifying the issues at an early stage. If the tenant wished to raise, as a point of law, an argument that the landlord did not fulfil the requirements of section 30(3) of the 1954 Act, he should have identified it as early as possible to enable the courts to deal with it in an appropriate way. Had the tenant raised the section 30(3) point at an earlier stage, the landlord could easily have met that point by carrying out a transfer before the date of the hearing. Justice would not be done if the tenant were able, by raising the point in closing submissions, to deprive the landlord of that possibility. It followed that it would be incompatible with the overriding objective if the courts could not adjourn the case and admit further evidence enabling the landlord to correct the problem and establish ground (g). Although the tenant in the instant case might not have been aware of the section 30(3) point until the date of the hearing, the position could not be different according to whether his earlier failure to raise it was intentional or not. It followed that the judge’s exercise of his discretion could not be faulted.
Bryan McGuire (instructed by Hodders) appeared for the appellant; Janet Bignell (instructed by Vizards Staples & Bannisters) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
