Law Cases - Business Tenancies Flashcards
Atkinson v. Bettison (1955)
Refurbishment of a shop front, and removal of a rear wall does not constitute ‘substantial’ works for the purposes of a s.30(1)(f) opposition.
Gregson v. Cyri Lord Ltd (1963)
Genuine intent that, objectively tested, shows a reasonable prospect of actual occupation.
Hazel v. Akhtar (2002)
Even where there has been late payment, if this has been accepted without complaint, then the landlord may not be able to use it as grounds to oppose renewal.
Heath v. Drown (1973)
Only where the tenant’s right of possession must end can carrying out works serve as s.30(1)(f) grounds.
Hurstfell Ltd v. Leicester Square Property Co Ltd (1988)
Even in the face of previous late payment, if the recent record is of good payment, then the discretion afforded by ‘ought’ can be used.
Janes Gowns v. Harlow Development Corporation (1980)
Where there is no agreement, courts are restricted by the statutory provision – even if bot parties wish for a longer term.
Joel v. Swaddle (1957)
Where internal refurbishment requires removal of load bearing walls, and similar infrastructure changes, then the work may well meet the ‘substantial’ test.
Morrison Holdings v. Manders Property (Wolverhampton) Ltd (1975)
Where occupancy has been temporarily interrupted by a forcible evacuation (such as a fire damaging the building) then an occupant intending to return as soon as possible, is still in occupation for the LTA 1954 Part 2.
O’May v. City of London Real Property Co Ltd (1983)
If a party wishes to change any of the terms in the new lease, the party must:
- State the reason for variation
- Provide appropriate compensation
- Ensure business continuity
- Be fair and reasonable.
Teasedale v. Walker (1958)
Occupation must be ‘real and genuine’ – any ‘manager’ must be operating as the true agent of the tenants business and under their direction.
