One of the most discussed cases of 2017 is heading to the Supreme Court, raising the question of what intention a landlord is required to show in order to refuse a new lease on grounds of redevelopment plans.
The court has granted permission to appeal in S Franses v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd [2017] EWHC 1670 (QB); [2017] PLSCS 145, a case that raises profound issues in relation to the proper operation of ground (f) of section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
A landlord is entitled to refuse a new lease under ground (f) if it “intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises comprised in the holding or a substantial part of those premises or to carry out substantial work or construction on the holding or part thereof and that he could not reasonably do so without obtaining possession of the holding”.
The case involves a dispute between landlord the Cavendish Hotel at Jermyn Street, London W1, and its tenant of premises at 80 Jermyn Street, which carries on business as a textile dealership and consultancy, specialising in antique tapestries and textile art.
The tenant applied under the 1954 Act for a new tenancy, but this was dismissed on the basis that the landlord had made out its ground of opposition under section 30(1)(f).
At the High Court, Jay J sided with the landlord, finding that the requisite intention under ground (f) was demonstrated, even though the evidence was that the landlord’s motive for redevelopment was to get rid of the tenant.
Following that decision, Benjamin Faulkner of Wilberforce Chambers, who acted as junior counsel for the tenant, said that “opinion is divided” on the significance of the case: “Some practitioners consider it entirely unremarkable; others view it as the end of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 as we know it.”
He added: “If this case stands, advice to landlords in ground (f) cases is likely to change dramatically. For the first time there is clear authority that the landlord’s underlying motive of wanting to be rid of its tenant is irrelevant. Confident in that knowledge, landlords will no longer feel that they ought to justify the works by reference to the benefits they will bring. Instead, they will frankly say that they just want rid of the tenant and have been advised that the scheme of works ought to do the trick.”
Now though, the decision will come under challenge at the Supreme Court.
To send feedback, e-mail jess.harrold@egi.co.uk or tweet @jessharrold or @estatesgazette
