Business Tenancies: Whether a landlord had requisite intention to occupy when opposing new tenancy (Macey v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Limited – 2021)
Where a tenant sought to renew its business tenancy but the landlord opposed the grant on the grounds of its own wish to occupy for business purposes, the High Court considered the landlord’s appeal against the first instance decision.
The background
In Macey v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Limited [2021], the tenant was a restaurant company occupying and trading from premises in Exeter let by Macey, the landlord. The lease expired in August 2020, although it continued under the security of tenure provisions granted under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The landlord opposed the grant of a new lease and sought to terminate the existing tenancy on the grounds of s.30(1)(g) of the LTA 1954, which states that a landlord may oppose an application for a new tenancy on the grounds that the landlord “intends to occupy the holding for the purposes, or partly for the purposes, of a business to be carried on by him therein, or as his residence.”
The court at first instance decided that the landlord did not have the requisite intention to occupy the premises for his own business or residential purposes and found in favour of the tenant. The landlord appealed.
The decision
The High Court found in favour of the tenant, dismissing the landlord’s appeal. The judge at first instance had not erred in his decision, interpreting the existing law in relation to the landlord’s ‘subjective intention’ correctly and having given reasons for his conclusion.
The landlord argued that the judge had not given reasons for the decision; the High Court found that reasons relating to the landlord’s ‘subjective intention’ were clearly explained in the judgment, and this ground of appeal was dismissed.
The landlord also appealed on the grounds that the judge at first instance had ‘improperly rejected’ the landlord’s evidence, and that the judge’s conclusions had no basis. The High Court dismissed this ground also, concluding that the landlord intended by raising this ground of appeal to bring the factual evidence in front of the court again. The High Court proceeded with caution here, having been asked to reverse factual findings, and could find no reason to agree with the landlord that the judge had not given sufficient weight to the evidence presented at first instance.
Advice and action for landlords
This was an appeal raised on points of law, all of which were dismissed by the appeal court. The court at first instance had applied existing precedents properly, and the High Court was not prepared to enter into a review of evidence in order to consider whether the first instance judge had given sufficient weight to the evidence presented initially.
This decision serves as a warning for landlords that, in order to succeed on a ‘ground (g)’ opposition to a renewed business tenancy, sufficient evidence of subjective intention to occupy the premises as stated must be presented. The decision also indicates that the appeal courts will take a dim view of attempts to challenge a decision based on review of evidence or lack of clarity in particular.
The High Court dismissed the landlord’s appeal. The judge at first instance had not erred in his decision, interpreting the existing law in relation to the landlord’s ‘subjective intention’ correctly.
