Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, section 37 — Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (Appropriate Multiplier) Regulations 1981 — Compensation payable to business tenants where court precluded from ordering a new tenancy on one of the grounds specified in section 31(1)(e), (f) or (g) of the 1954 Act — Landlord’s notice served before the amendment of the compensation provisions made by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 came into force — Held, applying the decision of the Court of Appeal in Cardshops Ltd v John Lewis Properties Ltd, that the new compensation provisions applied — Consequently the tenants were entitled to compensation equal to twice the rateable value of the holding multiplied by two and a quarter — Certificate, however, given by judge to enable application to be made for a ‘leap-frog’ appeal to the House of Lords, having regard to probable appeal to the House in the Cardshops case, a majority decision of the Court of Appeal
This was an
originating summons by which the plaintiffs, Sperry Ltd, tenants, sought a
declaration that, in the events which had happened, they were entitled as
against their landlords, the defendants, Hambro Life Assurance Ltd, to
compensation on quitting the holding at the higher rate introduced by the Local
Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and brought into operation by the
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (Appropriate Multiplier) Regulations 1981 (SI 1981
no 69).
J E F Lindsay
QC and E Perks (instructed by Asshetons) appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs;
Robert Pryor (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) represented the defendants.
Giving
judgment, GOULDING J said: This is an originating summons by which a tenant of
business premises, Sperry Ltd, seeks against its landlord the defendant, Hambro
Life Assurance Ltd, a declaration that, on the true construction of the
Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980
and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (Appropriate Multiplier) Regulations 1981
(SI 1981 no 69), and in the events which have happened, the amount which the
plaintiff was and is entitled under section 37(1) of the Landlord and Tenant
Act 1954 to recover from the defendant by way of compensation on quitting the
holding forming part of certain premises referred to in the summons is that
provided for by section 37(2)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 as amended
by paragraph 4 of Schedule 33 to the Act of 1980, namely the product of the
appropriate multiplier, two and a quarter, and twice the rateable value of the
holding on the date of service on the plaintiff of the defendant’s notice under
section 25 of the Act of 1954, namely October 20 1980.
The summons as
argued before me raised a short point of construction, whether the revised
compensation provided under the legislation of 1980 was applicable in the
present case, where the landlord’s notice was served before that legislation
came into force. A similar point has arisen in cases which were unreported at
the date I heard argument but about which I was informed through a transcript
of the judgments: one decided by Walton J, the other by Slade J*. Both those
learned judges came to the conclusion that where the tenant quit the holding on
the expiry of his right to continue in occupation at a date when the new
legislation was already in force, then he would be entitled to the larger
compensation thereby provided, notwithstanding that other events leading up to
his quitting the holding might have occurred before it was in force. I formed
the opinion, after hearing full argument, that those two decisions were plainly
right and that I should wish to follow them even though not strictly bound to
do so. However, I was informed that there was pending before the Court of
Appeal an appeal from a county court which raised the same point, namely Cardshops
Ltd v John Lewis Properties Ltd. Accordingly I deferred my judgment
until the decision of the Court of Appeal should be available.
*Garrett v
Lloyds Bank Ltd (Walton J) (unreported) and International Military
Services Ltd v Capital & Counties plc (1981) 261 EG 778, [1982]
1 EGLR 71(Slade J).
The Court of
Appeal gave judgment on June 24 last(† ) and by a majority decided in the same
sense as the two learned judges in the High Court whom I have mentioned. I am
accordingly now not only desirous of deciding in that sense but bound to do so,
as the present case is in my judgment clearly indistinguishable. Therefore I
will make a declaration in the terms desired by the plaintiff as set out in
paragraph 1 of the originating summons.
† Reported at
(1982) 263 EG 791, [1982] 2 EGLR 53.
The judge gave
a certificate under section 12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969
with a view to a ‘leap-frog’ appeal to the House of Lords.
