No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 March 2012
Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 regulates the renewal of business tenancies. Within highly technical confines, it promotes the continuation of the tenant's business and addresses the risk of tenant exploitation. Nevertheless, it is argued that section 30(1)(g) unnecessarily prioritises the occupation needs of the landlord over the tenant's renewal rights and without imposing effective procedural safeguards. Although compensation for loss of renewal rights may be available, the award disregards any loss of established goodwill. This inadequacy of compensation undermines the anti-profiteering ethos of the Act and contravenes Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
1 D. Englander, Landlord and Tenant in Urban Britain 1838–1918 (Oxford 1983), 5.
2 See the deliberations of the Select Committee on Town Holdings, Reports from the Committees, 1892, vol. 7. These recommendations contained the prototype of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927.
3 O'May v City of London Real Property Co Ltd. [1983] 2 A.C. 726, 747.
4 See the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915, the Rent Agriculture Act 1976 (re tied housing), the Rent Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1988. No equivalent provision was included within the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948.
5 The Hale and Ungoed Thomas minority report appended to the Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950) Cmd. 7982, p.130 at § 21. The authors added, “to defeat the tenant's right of renewal by payment of compensation is to make the priority of renewal over compensation illusory in principle …” (p.130 at § 21).
6 It is the product of rateable values and a prescribed multiplier. Double rate compensation is payable to tenants who had been in occupation for 14 years: section 37(3). Curiously, the introduction of a more sophisticated sliding scale, reflecting different periods of occupation, has never been proposed. C/f Northern Ireland where the multiplier increases at four levels: Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, article 23(2).
7 In Ireland, however, the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act 1906 and the Eire Landlord and Tenant Act 1931 ensured that the tenant was fully compensated for loss of goodwill, removal costs and other incidental disadvantages.
8 Per Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1763 (27 January 1954). He also acknowledged that, “removal is a harder blow for the long established business”: HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1764 (27 January 1954).
9 A Periodic Review of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II (1992) Law Com No. 208 at § 3.29.
10 But see Vos J. in Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd. v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 2043 (Ch) who asserted at [143], “This exception is not a charter for expropriation”.
11 Governmental Policy on Leasehold Property in England and Wales (1953) Cmd. 8713 at § 50.
12 As was necessary under the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915.
13 Unlike Case 9 of the Rent Act 1977.
14 Unlike Cases XI and XII of the Rent Agriculture Act 1976 and Ground 1 of the Housing Act 1988.
15 Seemingly, this can be achieved by the simple ploy of the existing landlord serving a section 25 termination notice prior to selling the reversionary interest.
16 Governmental Policy on Leasehold Property in England and Wales at § 53.
17 In Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd. v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 2043 (Ch), for example, the tenant (albeit unsuccessfully) attempted to disprove the landlord's intention by arguing that it would cost the landlord £60 million and take two years to open up in business.
18 See generally, Haley, M., “The Statutory Regulation of Business Tenancies: Private Property, Public Interest and Political Compromise” (1999) 19 Legal Studies 207CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 See the Leasehold Committee Interim Report, Tenure and Rents of Business Premises (1949) Cmd. 7706 at §§ 12–24. For example, in Eire a system of compensation for goodwill and improvements had been in place since the Town Tenants (Ireland) Act 1906.
20 There had, however, been some temporary experimentation in the form of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915 and the Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Act 1920 (both of which concerned mixed use, shop premises).
21 A transitional measure, again designed only to protect shopkeepers, was to be found in the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act 1951.
22 D. Englander, Landlord and Tenant in Urban Britain 1838–1918 (Oxford, 1983), 80.
23 As Lord Rochdale observed, “A good landlord certainly will not complain of that. The poor landlord has no right to complain and the tenant cannot expect anymore” (HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 135 (29 June 1954)).
24 Defined restrictively in section 4(1) as goodwill which, ‘has become attached to the premises by reason whereof the premises could be let at a higher rent’. Such goodwill was notoriously difficult to prove and evaluate: see Whiteman Smith Motor Co v Clayton [1934] 2 K.B. 36 (CA).
25 Due to the pre-condition of establishing adherent goodwill, renewal was uncommon.
26 Other provisions dealt with compensation for tenants' improvements and these, somewhat remarkably, continue to be good law: see Haley, M., “Compensation for Tenants' Improvements: A Valediction?” (1991) 11 Legal Studies 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 See R.E. Megarry [1953] 69 L.Q.R. 305.
28 The Leasehold Committee Interim Report, Tenure and Rents of Business Premises (1949) Cmd. 7706 at § 38.
29 The aim is to “give the tenant something to help him to re-establish his business elsewhere” (per Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1764 (27 January 1954).
30 (1950) Cmd. 7982 at § 177.
31 The Law of Property Act 1969 eventually introduced this facility.
32 (1949) Cmd. 7706 at § 65.
33 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee, at § 165.
34 Ibid., at § 173.
35 Ibid., at §§ 167–169.
36 Ibid., at § 125.
37 Ibid., at § 210.
38 Governmental Policy on Leasehold Property in England and Wales at § 42.
39 Ibid., at § 53.
40 See Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd. v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 2043 (Ch).
41 Zarvos v Pradhan [2003] 2 P. & C.R. 9, 135; see also the views of Vos J. in Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd. v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 2043 (Ch) at [143] who admitted that the tenant could not call foul, “when the predator took over its building and operation and simply changed the name above the door”.
42 (Unreported) 24 January 2000 (CA).
43 Per Rt. Hon. Mr West M.P., HC Deb. vol. 522, col. 1858 (27 January 1954).
44 See Daleo v Iretti (1972) 224 E.G. 61.
45 Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd. v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 2043 (Ch) at [143].
46 See Iatradis v Greece (2000) 30 E.H.R.R. 97.
47 See Bugajny v Poland [2007] E.C.H.R. 891.
48 See Stretch v UK (2004) 38 E.H.R.R. 196. There an invalid option to purchase was held to be a possession and its non-performance amounted to a frustration of the tenant's legitimate expectations under the lease.
49 See Van Marle v Netherlands (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 491 which concerned the refusal of a licence to practice as an accountant.
50 Clearly it has the potential to extend to the parties' rights under the 1954 Act: see BOH Ltd. v Eastern Power Networks plc [2011] EWCA Civ 19.
51 See Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden (1983) 5 E.H.R.R. 35, where the revocation of an expropriation permit without compensation amounted to an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of property.
52 As Carnwath L.J. noted in Thomas v Bridgend County B.C. [2011] EWCA Civ 862 at [59], “the presence or absence of compensation … is an important element in deciding whether, in authorising the interference in the general interest, the balance struck by the state is fair”.
53 Although the interpretative power offered by section 3 is wide, the court cannot trespass into the territory of amendment: Re S [2002] 2 A.C. 313.
54 This safeguard had not featured in the 1927 Act.
55 It does not have to be proved at the date of a summary judgment hearing: Somerfield Stores Ltd. v Spring (Sutton Coldfield) Ltd. [2010] EWHC 2084 (Ch).
56 The Final Report of the Leasehold Committee did, however, favour this familial extension (at § 167).
57 [1963] 1 W.L.R. 1008, 1015.
58 Piper v Muggleton [1956] 2 Q.B. 569.
59 Section 44(1A).
60 BOH Ltd. v Eastern Power Networks plc [2011] EWCA Civ 19.
61 See XL Fisheries Ltd. v Leeds Corporation [1955] 2 Q.B. 636.
62 Willison v Shaftesbury plc (unreported) 15 May 1998 (CA).
63 The restriction was promoted in the Final Report of the Leasehold Committee at § 167 to counter concerns as to potential abuse by landlords.
64 Per Danckwerts L.J. in Artemiou v Procopiou [1966] 1 Q.B. 878, 885.
65 [2000] 1 All E.R. 403.
66 [2000] 1 All E.R. 403, 410.
67 The term ‘purchased’ is to be given its ordinary meaning (that is, buying for money): Frederick Lawrence Ltd. v Freeman Hardy & Willis Ltd. [1959] 3 All E.R. 77.
68 The rule applies even if the landlord has been granted a reversionary lease: Wimbush (AD) & Sons Ltd. v Franmills Properties Ltd. [1961] Ch 419.
69 The termination date for these purposes is the date specified in the landlord's section 25 notice or the tenant's section 26 request for a new lease.
70 There is simply no mischief to address: see Northcote Laundry Ltd. v Frederick Donnelly Ltd. [1968] 2 All E.R. 50.
71 Bolton (HL) Engineering Ltd. v Graham (TJ) & Sons Ltd. [1957] 1 Q.B. 159.
72 Frederick Lawrence Ltd. v Freeman Hardy & Willis Ltd. [1959] 3 All E.R. 77.
73 Northcote Laundry Ltd. v Frederick Donnelly Ltd. [1968] 2 All E.R. 50.
74 Section 30(2A).
75 Northcote Laundry Ltd. v Frederick Donnelly Ltd. [1968] 2 All E.R. 50. This does not apply, however, where it is a trustee landlord who seeks possession: Morar v Chauhan [1985] 3 All E.R. 493.
76 [1965] 3 All E.R. 539.
77 [1965] 3 All E.R. 539, 545. Salmon L.J. added (at p. 546), “it would be absurd if, for example, a landlord who has held under a lease for, say, fifty years and had obtained an extension by the grant of a new lease within the five years period should be deprived of the benefit of s 30(1)(g)”.
78 [2000] 1 All E.R. 403.
79 [2000] 1 All E.R. 403, 408; see also Morar v Chauhan [1985] 3 All E.R. 493.
80 As Arden L.J. put in Patel v Keles [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 24 at [24], “that would be a way of driving a coach and horses through the protection given by s 30(2)”.
81 Per Arden L.J. in Patel v Keles [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 24 at [17].
82 See Diploma Laundry Ltd. v Surrey Timber Ltd. [1955] 2 Q.B. 604.
83 See the Final Report of the Leasehold Committee at § 167.
84 Northcote Laundry v Frederick Donnelly Ltd. [1968] 2 All E.R. 50 (six days short of five years' business user).
85 See Bell v Alfred Franks & Bartlett & Co Ltd. [1980] 1 All E.R. 356.
86 (1969) 20 P. & C.R. 870; see also Upsons Ltd. v E Robins Ltd. [1956] 1 Q.B. 131 where the landlord's opposition failed because it had acquired the property two months before the lapse of the section 30(2) disqualification period.
87 (1969) 20 P. & C.R. 870, 874.
88 See Haley, M., “Occupation and the Renewal of Business Tenancies: Fact, Fiction and Legal Abstraction” (2007) J.B.L. 759Google Scholar.
89 As Lord Nicholls observed in Graysim Holdings Ltd. v P&O Property Holdings Ltd. [1996] A.C. 329, 336, “The types of property, and the possible uses of property, vary so widely that there can be no hard and fast rules”.
90 See Pointon York Group plc v Poulton (2007) 1 P. & C.R. 6.
91 See Wandsworth LBC v Singh (1991) 62 P& CR 219 where the passive management of a park by the tenant's agents sufficed.
92 Bacchiocchi v Academic Agency Ltd. [1998] 2 All E.R. 241.
93 Teasdale v Walker [1958] 1 W.L.R. 1076.
94 Pulleng v Curran [1982] 44 P. & C.R. 58.
95 Skeet v Powell-Sneddon [1988] 40 E.G. 116.
96 Hills (Patents) Ltd. v University College Hospital Board of Governors [1955] 3 All E.R. 365.
97 Re Crowhurst Park [1974] 1 All E.R. 991.
98 Section 41(2).
99 Section 42(3).
100 Zafiris v Liu (2006) 1 P. & C.R. 466 (CA).
101 Defined in section 23(3) as being the property comprised within the tenancy that is occupied by the tenant for business purposes.
102 Shecrum Ltd. v Savill (unreported) April 1 1996 (CA).
103 Method Developments Ltd. v Jones [1971] 1 All E.R. 1027.
104 A Periodic Review of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II at § 3.28.
105 Ibid.
106 [1959] 1 All E.R. 497.
107 The landlord would have fared better by relying on ground (f). As Willmer L.J. admitted in the Nursey case at 500, “The only intention proved was an intention to demolish and reconstruct”.
108 Leathwoods Ltd. v Total Oil (GB) Ltd. (1986) 51 P. & C.R. 20.
109 Cam Gears Ltd. v Cunningham [1981] 2 All E.R. 560.
110 (1987) 53 P. & C.R. 223.
111 The landlord intended to demolish two partition walls between the landlord's present premises and those of the tenant and to occupy the holding as enlarged.
112 [1971] 1 All E.R. 1027.
113 C/f Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, section 5(3).
114 See McKenna v Porter Motors [1956] A.C. 688 (PC). The court must resist imputing, “a wholly irrational and capricious intention to the legislature” (per Oliver L.J. in Cam Gears Ltd. v Cunningham [1981] 2 All E.R. 560, 563).
115 As Templeman, J. explained, “The object of para. (g) of section 30(1) is not to hand the land back to the landlord in a sterilised form …” (Cam Gears Ltd. v Cunningham [1981] 2 All E.R. 560, 564Google Scholar).
116 See McKenna v Porter Motors (1956) A.C. 688.
117 See Fisher v Taylor's Furnishing Stores Ltd. [1956] 2 All E.R. 78.
118 This will take into account any continuation under section 64(1) until ‘final disposal’ of proceedings occurs: Coffee Machine Co v Guardian Assurance Co [1959] 1 All E.R. 458.
119 Inclusive Technology v Williamson [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 2.
120 [1971] 1 All E.R. 1027; see also Chez Gerard Ltd. v Greene Ltd. [1983] 2 E.G.L.R. 79.
121 See Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd. v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 2043 (Ch) where the High Court emphasised that it is the taking up of occupation that is the key and not necessarily when the business will begin to operate.
122 [1990] 1 E.G.L.R. 112.
123 C/f Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, article 12(1)(g) which requires occupation for ‘a reasonable period’.
124 Willis v Association of Universities of the British Commonwealth [1964] 2 All E.R. 39. As Arden L.J. accepted in Patel v Keles [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 24 at [36], “his intended occupation must not be fleeting or illusory … Parliament could hardly have intended that the landlord should be able to prevent the renewal of business tenancy if that were not so”.
125 Jones v Jenkins (1985) 277 E.G. 644.
126 Patel v Keles [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 24. As Arden L.J. acknowledged at [36], “What is short-term must depend on the facts of the particular case”.
127 [1964] 2 All E.R. 39, 43. Conversely, if the landlord intended to sell to his son there would be no scope for ground (g) to operate.
128 [1964] 2 All E.R. 39, 48.
129 [1964] 2 All E.R. 39, 48.
130 As Arden L.J explained [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 24 at [23], “The landlord did not have to show that his occupation would be for any particular period (indeed that would be to write words into the statute) unless he intended to sell the premises”.
131 The undertaking by Mr Keles did not, however, impose upon him any positive obligation to occupy.
132 In Lennox v Bell (1957) 169 E.G. 753, when illness entailed that the landlord would not be able to carry on the proposed business, the real intention was to sell with vacant possession.
133 As Arden L.J. explained in Patel v Keles at [36], “This is a multifactorial question to be decided on all the relevant evidence”.
134 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee at § 169.
135 Report on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II at § 39.
136 The landlord's opposition would fail even though sale was a somewhat distant prospect: see Patel v Keles [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 24.
137 Absent misrepresentation and/or concealment of a material fact by the landlord there is nothing that the tenant can do in this scenario.
138 These terms are, as Lord Coleridge L.J. observed in Lewis v Graham (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 780, 781, “elastic words, of which an exhaustive definition cannot be given, but they must be construed in every case in accordance with the object and intent of the Act in which they occur”.
139 See Shecrum Ltd. v Savill (unreported) April 1 1996 (CA).
140 Cox v Binfield [1989] 1 E.G.L.R. 97.
141 See Beck v Scholz [1953] 1 Q.B. 570.
142 Langford Property Co Ltd. v Athanassoglou [1948] 2 All E.R. 722.
143 (Unreported) April 1 1996 (CA).
144 Hampstead Way Investments Ltd. v Lewis-Weare [1985] 1 All E.R. 564.
145 Haskins v Lewis [1931] 2 K.B. 1.
146 Town Investments Ltd. v Department of the Environment [1978] A.C. 359, 383; see J. Morgan, “Business, Profit and the 1954 Act” [2005] J.B.L. 235.
147 For example, private companies, local authorities and statutory undertakers.
148 For example, trade unions and friendly societies.
149 Rolls v Miller (1884) 27 Ch.D. 71, 88.
150 Re the Estate of the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England v Wales (1888) 22 Q.B.D. 279. In Northern Ireland, this is expressly acknowledged in Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, article 2(2).
151 [2003] EWHC 3333 (Ch). Any trading surplus was used towards maintaining, improving and enlarging its sporting facilities.
152 In Lewis v Weldcrest [1978] 1 W.L.R. 1107, the taking in of a small number of paying lodgers was not regarded as a business.
153 Secretary for State for Transport v Jenkins (unreported) 30 October 1997 (CA). There a co-operative farm operated in the spirit of public benevolence was not classified as a business.
154 [1970] 1 Q.B. 10, 20.
155 (1834) 2 Ad. & El. 161.
156 A profit motive is not, however, essential: see Ireland v Taylor [1949] 1 K.B. 300 where a guesthouse operated on a non-profit basis was held to constitute a trade.
157 See IRC v Maxse [1919] 1 K.B. 647, 657 where Scrutton L.J. provided the working definition of, “an occupation requiring either purely intellectual skill or manual skill controlled … by the intellectual skill of the operator …”.
158 [1970] 1 Q.B. 10, 17.
159 See Partridge v Mallandine (1886) 18 LCD 276.
160 Hills (Patents) Ltd. v University College Hospital Board of Governors [1956] 1 Q.B. 90.
161 Lecture League Ltd. v LCC (1913) 108 L.T. 924.
162 [1970] 1 Q.B. 10, 17.
163 Government departments are expressly included: section 56(3).
164 (Unreported) 30 October 30 1997 (CA).
165 (Unreported) 30 October 30 1997 (CA). Joint tenants are not necessarily to be viewed as a body of persons.
166 Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd. v Crabbe [1958] 1 Q.B. 513.
167 Wandsworth LBC v Singh (1991) 62 P. & C.R. 219.
168 Hills (Patents) Ltd. v University College Hospital Board of Governors [1956] 1 Q.B. 90.
169 Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese Ltd. v Daily Telegraph [1988] 3 All E.R. 217.
170 Bell v Alfred Franks & Bartlett & Co [1980] 1 All E.R. 356.
171 (1979) 39 P. & C.R. 67, 73. There the casual dumping of waste building materials was not regarded as the carrying on of an activity for the purposes of section 23(2).
172 Parkes v Westminster Roman Catholic Diocese Trustee (1978) 36 P. & C.R. 22.
173 Page v Sole (unreported) 24 January 1991 (CA).
174 Hunt v Decca Navigator (1972) 222 E.G. 605.
175 Graysim Holdings Ltd. v P&O Property Holdings Ltd. [1995] 4 All E.R. 831. This decision exploded the myth that the tenant and the sub-tenant could be in co-existent occupation.
176 Merely re-letting the flats would not amount to business use of the holding: Jones v Jenkins (1985) 277 E.G. 644.
177 Wates Estate Agency Services Ltd. v Bartleys Ltd. [1989] 47 E.G. 151.
178 The Northern Ireland Law Commission Consultation Paper, Business Tenancies N.I.L.C. 5 (2010) at § 10.2 has, however, questioned whether the landlord should be entitled to possession in this scenario.
179 Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd. v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 2043 (Ch).
180 (1972) 224 E.G. 61.
181 If the landlord had intended to operate a different business from the premises, there would have been no obstacle in her way.
182 Per Lord Evershed M.R. in Betty's Cafes Ltd. v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd. [1957] Ch 67, 99.
183 Per Vos J. in Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd. v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 2043 (Ch) at [99].
184 Gregson v Cyril Lord Ltd. [1963] 1 W.L.R. 41.
185 Zarvos v Pradhan [2003] 2 P. & C.R. 9. As Ward L.J. observed (at 129), “Pie in the sky will not be enough ….” C/f the 1927 Act, which had solely been concerned with the landlord's bona fides.
186 [1950] 2 K.B. 237, 254.
187 [2003] 2 P. & C.R. 9.
188 [2003] 2 P. & C.R. 9, 129.
189 [2003] 2 P. & C.R. 9, 129.
190 [2003] 2 P. & C.R. 9, 134.
191 Mirza v Nicola (1990) 30 E.G. 92.
192 In Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd. v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 2043 (Ch) at [130] Vos J. accepted that, “The fact that unexpected offers and events may in the future occur does not … make ABP's decision uncertain or unconditional”.
193 See Inclusive Technology v Williamson [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 2. The Law Commission rightly rejected the notion that the former tenant's right to a new lease should somehow later be rekindled (Report on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II (1969) Law Com No. 17 at § 38).
194 See Chez Gerard Ltd. v Greene Ltd. (1983) 268 E.G. 575. This argument is based upon the inability at law to enforce an undertaking to occupy.
195 See London Hilton Jewellers Ltd. v Hilton International Hotels Ltd. (1990) 20 E.G. 69. C/f the temporary and imprecise undertaking offered in Patel v Keles (2010) 1 P. & C.R. 24.
196 John Miller (Shipping) Ltd. v Port of London Authority [1959] 2 All E.R. 713.
197 Europark (Midlands) Ltd. v Town Centre Securities (1985) 274 E.G. 289.
198 Poppetts (Caterers) Ltd. v Maidenhead BC [1970] 3 All E.R. 289.
199 (1988) 40 E.G. 116.
200 (1957) 169 E.G. 656.
201 Espresso Coffee Machine Co Ltd. v Guardian Assurance Co Ltd. [1959] 1 All E.R. 458. The landlord cannot always, as Lord Evershed put it (at 460), “have his bun and his penny”.
202 In Dolgellau Golf Club v Hett (1998) 34 E.G. 87, the landlord's initial plan was to operate an 18-hole golf course, but eventually recovered possession so as to operate a 9-hole course.
203 C/f ground (f) where it is permissible for the landlord to advance alternative schemes of redevelopment: Yoga for Health Foundation v Guest & Utilini [2002] EWHC 2658 (Ch).
204 [2003] 2 P. & C.R. 9, 131.
205 (Unreported) 24 January 2000 (CA) at [61].
206 See Zarvos v Pradhan [2003] 2 P. & C.R. 9.
207 Adams v Glibbery (JR) & Sons Ltd. (unreported) 22 January 1991 (CA).
208 [1989] 1 E.G.L.R. 97. As O'Connor L.J. explained (at 101), “Objectively, the judge must be able to say that this intention is one which is being capable of being carried out in the reasonable future in the circumstances which will prevail when possession is achieved by the landlord”.
209 (1998) 34 E.G. 87.
210 (1998) 34 E.G. 87, 90; see Morgan, J., “Establishing an Intention to Occupy” (1999) J.B.L. 269Google Scholar.
211 (1989) 47 E.G. 51.
212 Dolgellau Golf Club v Hett (1998) 34 E.G. 87.
213 Gatwick Parking Service Ltd. v Sargent (unreported) 24 January 2000 (CA).
214 Westminster City Council v British Waterways Board [1985] 1 A.C. 676.
215 Coppen v Bruce-Smith (1998) 77 P. & C.R. 239.
216 In Westminster City Council v British Waterways Board [1985] 1 A.C. 676, the landlord's opposition under ground (g) failed because the local authority tenant would never consent to the change of use from a street cleaning depot to a marina.
217 See the Department for Communities and Local Government Report, Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: Review of Impact of Procedural Reforms (2006) at § 10.