Generic filters
Exact matches only
Quastels
  • Expertise
    • Corporate & Commercial
    • Commercial Real Estate
    • Residential Real Estate
    • Digital Assets & Blockchain
    • Data Protection & Privacy
    • Employment
    • International Dispute Resolution
    • Property Dispute Resolution
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Sports
    • Private Client
    • Corporate Immigration
    • Immigration
    • Construction
    • Finance and Banking
  • Sectors
    • Brands and Luxury
    • Recruitment and Talent Management
  • Team
  • News
  • About us
    • Core Values
    • Joining Us
    • Social Impact Programme
  • Contact
Menu
Quastels
  • Expertise
    • Corporate & Commercial
    • Commercial Real Estate
    • Residential Real Estate
    • Digital Assets & Blockchain
    • Data Protection & Privacy
    • Employment
    • International Dispute Resolution
    • Property Dispute Resolution
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Sports
    • Private Client
    • Corporate Immigration
    • Immigration
    • Construction
    • Finance and Banking
  • Sectors
    • Brands and Luxury
    • Recruitment and Talent Management
  • Team
  • News
  • About us
    • Core Values
    • Joining Us
    • Social Impact Programme
  • Contact
Quastels
  • Expertise
    • Corporate & Commercial
    • Commercial Real Estate
    • Residential Real Estate
    • Digital Assets & Blockchain
    • Data Protection & Privacy
    • Employment
    • International Dispute Resolution
    • Property Dispute Resolution
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Sports
    • Private Client
    • Corporate Immigration
    • Immigration
    • Construction
    • Finance and Banking
  • Sectors
    • Brands and Luxury
    • Recruitment and Talent Management
  • Team
  • News
  • About us
    • Core Values
    • Joining Us
    • Social Impact Programme
  • Contact

Opposition of Business Tenancy Renewals – Case Law Update

1 November 2023

The Court of Appeal (in the case of Gill v Lees News Limited) has recently provided helpful guidance on the fault grounds upon which a landlord may oppose the renewal of a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the “Act”), being:

Ground (a) = The premises were in substantial disrepair as a result of the tenant’s breach of its repairing covenant;

Ground (b) = The tenant had persistently delayed in paying rent;

Ground (c) = The tenant had substantially breached its obligations under the tenancy.

In each instance, the Court is required to determine whether the tenant ‘ought not’ be granted a new tenancy in view of the allegations raised by the landlord. 

Whilst the landlord in this case opposed on grounds (a)-(c), the Court’s focus was on ground (a). The Court found in the tenant’s favour even though it had:

      • previously failed to comply with its repairing obligations;
      • failed to pay rent on time; and
      • breached other covenants from time to time. 

The Court confirmed that the material time to assess the state of repair of the premises is over the entire period of tenancy, instead of a particular point in time. This approach enables the Court to consider all relevant facts and the issues in dispute up until the date of the hearing. This means that the landlord may, in principle, remain opposed to the grant of tenancy on ground (a) where disrepair has been remedied by the date of the hearing. 

The Court also provided guidance on whether the tenant “ought not” be granted a new lease. It must consider all material circumstances and the tenant’s overall conduct (which include the tenant’s past and assumed future conduct). By way of example, the tenant’s overall conduct (including its litigation conduct) could be a reason to refuse a tenancy if it has grotesquely exceeded any reasonable balance – in this case the Court was satisfied that the tenant had taken steps to remedy its breaches and that it would likely comply with its future obligations.

When considering the “ought not” question, the Court adopts a balanced approach that considers the interests of both parties, including the consequences for refusing or granting a new tenancy. 

This case has provided helpful clarification on the timeframe and factors when deciding the “ought not” question. As evidenced in this case, the Court should consider the grounds both individually and collectively, helping to address some prior conflict in the authorities.

 

To discuss any of the points raised in this article, please contact Daniel Blake or fill in the form below.

 

Get in touch
Authors
Daniel Blake
Expertises
  • Property Dispute Resolution
  • Business Tenancies
Get in touch
Call us
© All right reserved
  • +44 (0)20 7908 2525
  • enquiries@quastels.com
  • Quastels LLP, Watson House, 54 Baker Street, London W1U 7BU

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website. Find out more in our Cookie Policy and Website Privacy Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Find out more in our Cookie Policy, Client Privacy Policy and Website Privacy Policy

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

3rd Party Cookies

This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.

Enabling this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!