(1) T disadvantaged by subsequent lettings in same parade or precinct
Anyone subjected to a course in landlord and tenant law will sooner or later come across Port v Griffith [1938] 1 All ER 295 – the decision that affirms that a landlord of retail premises who lets a nearby shop to a competing retailer does not, without more, breach his covenant (express or implied) not to derogate from his grant. If a tenant wants such protection he must contract in.
Much of the thinking in Port v Griffith lay behind the decision in Petra Investments Ltd v Jeffrey Rogers plc [2000] 3 EGLR 120, where it did the tenant no good to complain that his business had never got off the ground because the landlord’s letting policy had progressively departed from the initial department store concept, described by the judge as no more than an “unrealised aspiration”.
It is otherwise where (exceptionally) the current letting is of purpose-built premises, or premises which cannot be described as a separate and independent retail unit: see the very special facts considered in Oceanic Village Ltd v Shirayama Shokusan Co Ltd [2001] EGCS 20.
The tenant is on rather stronger ground if his trade suffers physical interference from the activity of the neighbouring shop: see Chartered Trust plc v Davies [1997] 2 EGLR 83.
(2) T disadvantaged by other use of land retained by L
The capability of a shop to attract passing trade may be badly affected by subsequent changes made by L to the lay out of adjacent areas. Ideally the lease should strike a fair balance between the protection of T’s interests and the freedom of action desired by L. The lesson to be learned from Platt v London Underground Ltd [2001] 20 EG 227 (CS) [reviewed by Sandi Murdoch in
(3) Wider considerations
Complaints of derogation from grant are not the only matters that may stand in the way of plans for improving or changing the character of a shopping centre. For a valuable global view see “Advice on shop work” Estates Gazette 13 January 2001 contributed by solicitors Nigel Madeley and Andrew Boulton of Davies Arnold Cooper.
(1) T disadvantaged by subsequent lettings in same parade or precinct
Anyone subjected to a course in landlord and tenant law will sooner or later come across Port v Griffith [1938] 1 All ER 295 – the decision that affirms that a landlord of retail premises who lets a nearby shop to a competing retailer does not, without more, breach his covenant (express or implied) not to derogate from his grant. If a tenant wants such protection he must contract in.
Much of the thinking in Port v Griffith lay behind the decision in Petra Investments Ltd v Jeffrey Rogers plc [2000] 3 EGLR 120, where it did the tenant no good to complain that his business had never got off the ground because the landlord’s letting policy had progressively departed from the initial department store concept, described by the judge as no more than an “unrealised aspiration”.
It is otherwise where (exceptionally) the current letting is of purpose-built premises, or premises which cannot be described as a separate and independent retail unit: see the very special facts considered in Oceanic Village Ltd v Shirayama Shokusan Co Ltd [2001] EGCS 20.
The tenant is on rather stronger ground if his trade suffers physical interference from the activity of the neighbouring shop: see Chartered Trust plc v Davies [1997] 2 EGLR 83.
(2) T disadvantaged by other use of land retained by L
The capability of a shop to attract passing trade may be badly affected by subsequent changes made by L to the lay out of adjacent areas. Ideally the lease should strike a fair balance between the protection of T’s interests and the freedom of action desired by L. The lesson to be learned from Platt v London Underground Ltd [2001] 20 EG 227 (CS) [reviewed by Sandi Murdoch in Mind the grant Estates Gazette 14 July 2001, p139] is that the relevant provisions should be drafted with the greatest care. Unless adapted to the premises in question, that handy off the shelf precedent could be a recipe for disaster.
(3) Wider considerations
Complaints of derogation from grant are not the only matters that may stand in the way of plans for improving or changing the character of a shopping centre. For a valuable global view see “Advice on shop work” Estates Gazette 13 January 2001 contributed by solicitors Nigel Madeley and Andrew Boulton of Davies Arnold Cooper.
