When considering fault grounds of opposition to the grant of a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the court should consider the tenant’s conduct over the course of the tenancy not just at the date of hearing. Whether the tenant ought not to be granted a new tenancy is an overall question of whether it is fair to compel the landlord to grant a new tenancy.
The Court of Appeal has considered these issues in Gill v Lees News Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1178; [2023] PLSCS 171.
The respondent, Lees News Ltd, the tenant of business premises in London, W10 sought a new tenancy in August 2018. The appellant landlord, Mr Gill, as trustee for a pension scheme, opposed the new tenancy. He relied on three grounds under section 30 (1) of the 1954 Act, that the tenant ought not to be granted a new tenancy:
- (a) because the state of repair of the holding was due to the tenant’s failure to comply with its obligations to repair and maintain it;
- (b) in view of persistent delay in paying rent due;
- (c) in view of other substantial breaches of its lease obligations
The tenant argued no major work was required while carrying out works under a 2020 contract, details of which it failed to disclose.
The judge found that when the counter-notices were served, the premises were in substantial disrepair and there had been persistent delay in paying rent. However, the substantial disrepair had been remedied by the date of the hearing and the delay in payment of rent was minor and would not recur. There were other breaches of covenant but they too were minor.
The tenant had learned valuable lessons concerning compliance with the lease terms and accepted its business was its livelihood and served the local community. Gill was a hands-off, commercial landlord who had not established that the tenant “ought not” to be granted a new tenancy.
Dismissing the landlord’s appeal, the Court of Appeal decided the underlying policy of the grounds of opposition was for the court to review the tenant’s overall performance and not just the position at the date of the hearing. The trial judge’s approach to the “ought not” issue was entirely correct. He considered the grounds of opposition both singly and cumulatively and the tenant’s deceptive conduct as part of ground (c). The overall question is whether it is fair to the landlord having regard to the tenant’s past behaviour to compel it to re-enter legal relations with the tenant.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
