Business tenancy — Application for new tenancy — Negotiations unsuccessful — Court ordering grant of new tenancy — Landlord appealed — Whether landlord entitled to adduce fresh evidence of intention to demolish and redevelop site — Application granted
The respondent applied for a new tenancy of business premises in the City of London under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. When negotiations between the parties broke down, the matter came before the county court, which ordered the grant of a new tenancy for a period of 14 years with a break clause on terms. Both parties were granted permission to appeal. The respondent appealed against the judge’s decision that its new tenancy should include a landlord’s redevelopment break clause. The appellant landlords appealed against the judge’s conclusion as to the terms of that break clause; in particular, the period after which it should come into force.
The county court had heard evidence that the appellants had negotiated a sale of the building to a property development company, which proposed to redevelop the building as part of a larger site. At the time of the trial, no contracts for the sale had been exchanged.
The appellants applied to the court under CPR 52.11, seeking permission to adduce further evidence in connection with the sale of the site and the plans for its redevelopment, and for an order for the remission of the matter for further determination by the county court. The appellants contended that: (i) the new evidence supported their position that the site for the proposed development would be assembled, and the necessary permissions obtained, by September 2005; (ii) the development could and would commence thereafter; and (iii) the break clause should operate to enable that development to proceed. They submitted that these were matters of which the appeal court should be made aware and that it was properly entitled to take into account. The respondent argued that the admission of fresh evidence triggered by a prospective change of landlord would set a dangerous precedent.
Held: The application was granted.
In accordance with the principles stated by the Court of Appeal in Hughes v Singh unreported 13 April 1989 and applied in Bentley & Skinner (Bond Street Jewellers) Ltd v Searchmap Ltd [2003] EWHC 1621 (Ch), [2003] PLSCS 169, the court on an appeal had a discretion to admit evidence of events that took place after the initial judgment when justice so required. However, such discretion should be exercised sparingly. Evidence relating to matters that had occurred post-trial should be admitted when to refuse to do so would be an affront to fairness or the interests of justice. In applying that test, the court had to take into account all the circumstances, before, during and after the trial.
It was clear that, in the present case, the fresh evidence had to be admitted. The appeal court would not have been able to deal conscientiously with the case on any other basis. Accordingly the hearing of the appeals would be adjourned to enable the fresh evidence to be admitted.
Catherine Taskis (instructed by the solicitor to the Corporation of London) appeared for the appellants; Timothy Fancourt QC (instructed by Halliwell Landau) appeared for the respondent.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
