Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

P13 business tenancies, 2) serves counter notice: oppose and request one…

- - - - lease as a time limited contract
  - - - new proprietary relationship implied/governed by statute
    - - which is in the contract itself
    - - compensate T where they have invested in the business
    - - offer relocation option
      - seek order for possession
        
        but need to deal with 1954 Act
      - negotiate new lease
      - help w moving
- - - - L can only refuse it for certain reasons
- - - - covers leases, subleases, equitable leases, estates contract
        
        D'Silva v Lister House: equitable leases counts
      - fixed term/periodic tenancies
    - - occupation during negotiations
        
        Essex Plan: option to purchase lease
        
        Cameron v Rolls Royce: option to buy freehold
      - inconsistent w EP
      - management agreements
        
        Dellneed: BUT if management grants EP / manager run business like its own --> is lease
      - consideration for commercial parties
        
        National Car Parks: unless sham, clause calling it license will be given effect
    - - Wheeler v Mercer
        
        NO tenancies at will cuz cannot know the terms
      - Manfield & Sons
        
        parties can create tenancies at will if thats the genuine effect of the agreement
        
        but might be cases where this is sham, to avoid the act
      - Javad v Aqil
        
        occupation pending negotiation for lease is NOT periodic tenancy, just a tenancy at will
      - Manton securities
        
        but tenancy at will can --> equitable tenancy depending on L's action
    - - leases under Walsh
        
        Tottenham Hotspur
        
        parties agree to have lease, but never finish all requirements
      - applies to estoppel
        
        Bell v General Accident
      - valid written/oral agreements
  - - - Land Reclamation
        
        easement w no occupation no protection
      - Nevill long
        
        NO easement, but included as part of a larger property's protection
      - Ancillary rights such as right of way renewable alongside tenancy under s.32(3): Pointon York
  - - - Bracey v Read
      - Wandsworth Borough Council v Singh
  - - - Esselte AB v Pearl Assurance
    - - I & H Caplan v Caplan
        
        wont lose protecting by vacating the premise
        
        depends on the facts
      - Bacchiocchi
        
        vacating early will not break connection
        
        elasticity of the thread
        
        intention to return is necessary
        
        question: what is the intention/purpose/the nature of the non-activity?
    - - Graysim Holdings
        
        tenant sublet = not occupying
        
        if sublet part and occupy parts, must be able to continue business w the non-sublet part to be in occupation
        
        NO shared occupation
      - BUT if the tenant retains control --> occupation
        
        Groveside properties v medical school
      - Lee-Verhulst v Harwood Trust: for flats - if L served each flat daily & impose restriction on activity --> occupying
        
        but service must be actually provided to residents: Bassari v London Borough of Camden
    - - Morrison Holdings
        
        if T out of occupation due to L's fault = occupation
    - - whether this is occupation depends on facts/degree: Wandsworth BC v Singh
      - physically present/exercising control
    - - all joint tenant must be occupying
  - - - Cheryl Investments v Saldanha
      - Chapman v Freeman
        
        Employee occupation merely convenient not necessary = does not count
      - Methodist Secondary Schools v O'Leary: accommodation for employee is essential (security and emergency repairs)
    - - Hillil Property: dumping waste ≠ occupation
    - - Royal Life Saving Society: doctor has two addresses, rarely see patients at his home address --> residential is the main use, NOT 1954
      - Cheryl investment: property is the only business location, moves all his office stuff there --> significant business use
  - - - Abernethie v AM: giving sunday school ≠ business
      - Lewis v Weldcrest: Individual must show commercial advantage for activity to be a trade
    - - Addiscombe Garden Estates
- - - - if just excluding specific use, is not excluded
    - - Bell v Alfred Franks
        
        Consent = positive demonstrative act
        
        Acquiescence = passive failure to do anything
  - - - NOT periodic tenancies
        
        Nicholls v Kinsey: yearly periodic tenancies ≠ terms of years certain
    - - contains terms for renewal
      - T has been in occupation for > 12 month
        
        Cricket v Shaftesburry: cannot rely on tenancy at will to make this 12 month
- - - - is a statutory tenancy
    - - serve s 25 notice
        
        hard to get requirements right
        
        court process is lengthy --> significant delay
      - obtain court order for possession
      - need valid reason
        
        wider than L's ability to evict during term, but still narrow
    - - but assuratee NOT liable: Bowes-Lyon
      - guarantor NOT liable, unless intention is clear: Junction Estates
    - - Esselte AB v Pearl Assurance
      - EVEN IF they have already started the 1954 act process: Surrey v Single Horse
    - - BUT protect them from L just serving notice to quit
      - L has to go throughs 25 and the 6-12 month window
  - - - if periodic tenancy (no contractual end date)
        
        end date should not be earlier than the earliest end date L could end by notice to quit
      - Commercial Properties: L can choose any date for termination, dont have to concide w the payment structure
    - - termination date
      - grounds
        
        cannot later rely on the grounds that you did not put
        
        but also cannot put everything
        
        can list grounds that other L can rely on in future
        
        Marks v British Waterways Board: Successor landlord can rely on notice served by predecessor
      - be given in relation to the tenancy
      - accurately specify the premise
      - specify the name of L
        
        Morrow v Nadeem
        
        Pearson v Alyo: if joint landlord, must specify all L's name
    - - must serve to each joint tenants
      - must be given by or on behalf of L
      - should be signed by L
    - - the test is reasonable tenant
        
        Carradine Properties: wrongly put as 1973
        
        Mannai Investment : wrongly put someone's name
      - Barclays Bank v Bee: if L serves a notice, and serves again, both are not valid
    - - T can apply to court anytime after getting S 25 notice
        
        the DDL is the termination date in S 25
        
        if tenant NO response
        
        in case of renewal: has to accept L's term
        
        in case of termination: tenancy ends on termination date
      - T CANNOT serve S 26 after receiving S 25
    - - say not oppose to new tenancy
      - set out the proposals for rent and other terms
      - IF T disagree or theres dispute, both can apply to court
    - - can apply to court for renewal if cannot agree w T on the new terms
      - can apply to terminate
  - - - timing
        
        must be between 6-12 month before the end of fixed term
        
        OR within 1 month of receiving s 25 notice
        
        WAIT CAN T SERVE 26 after this???
      - must be made by or on behalf of T
      - must be given to L
      - set out T's proposal as to rent & other terms
      - specify the date which the new tenancy begins
    - - L NO response after 2 month
        
        T can go to court and apply for new tenancy
    - - can go anytime after receiving s 25 & After the contractual end date
      - can go if no response after 2 month for S 26
      - the DDL is termination date on s 26
- - - - T must have obligation to repair and breach that
    - - single payment that is very overdue
      - regular failure to pay on time
      - needs to have a degree of deliberateness
      - once L proves persistent arrears, buden shifts to T
        
        Hurstfell: T has to explain lateness and prove they wont do it again
      - BUT if L acquiesced, L estopped him and his successor from relying on (b)
        
        Hazel v Akhtar
    - - T must have some element of fault
      - No new tenancy if use is illegal: Turner and Bell
        
        or breach of planning control: Fowles v Heathrow Airport
      - even if illegal use is not on land itself, T will carry on illegal use elsewhere -> no tenancy:
        Beard v Williams
      - EVEN IF no breach, can still rely (T keeps sueing L): Horne and Meredith
    - - sublet of part of the superior tenancy
      - superior L (competent L under s 44) show:
        
        he requires possession to let property as a whole
        
        rent for letting building as a whole is more than subletting parts
  - - - accomm is available & suitable for T
      - if L can provide, they HAVE TO
        
        but the suitable element is discretionary in itself
      - L willing to provide alternative accomm
    - - demolition or reconstruction of substantial part/works
      - L cannot do this without having possession (31A)
        
        if T gives access/move to other parts --> possession not required
        
        Health v Drown: if disruption is substantial --> possession required
        
        Pumperninks: if T will undo L's renovation --> L's permanent possession is required
      - if L proves this, court MUST give possession (not discretionary)
        
        T can get compensation
      - Demolition
        
        requires some knocking down/removal
        
        Wessex Reserve Forces: Cannot say you'll demolish something that won't be there if tenancy ends (mobile car homes)
      - Reconstruction
        
        Percey E cadle: changing identity to connected units ≠ reconstruction
        
        Ivorygrove: if you do something to load bearing structure usually = reconstruction
      - Construction
        
        Barth v Pritchard: a lot of little works ≠ construction
        
        Redecorating, rewiring etc alone insufficient for ground (f)
        
        Romulus trading: work must involves subtantial interference w the structure
      - Substantial
        
        Joel v Swaddle: compare before vs. after holistically
      - Proof of intention
        
        at when?
        
        Betty's Cafe: date of the hearing
        
        Subjective intention
        
        Cunliffe v Goodman: must be definitive (move into the "valley of decision)
        
        objective reality
        
        Gregson v Cyril Lord: "How formidable is the fence + "reasonable prospect of surmounting"
        
        in this case its planning permission
        
        Westminster Council v British Waterways: reasonable prospect that permission will be granted --> can rely on (g)
        
        where council is T and court says if properly considered, L will get permission
        
        Gatwick Parking services: DONT need to guarantee the success, just show a chance
        
        motive is IRRELEVANT
        
        Franses v Cavendish Hotels
        
        L want to get rid of T, propose innovation, but say it out loud
        
        Court: motive is irrelvant
        
        BUT Acid test: would the landlord still do it if T is not there
        
        i.e. if T leaves voluntarily will L still do
        
        you CANNOT rely on this if the only thing motivating is get rid of T
        
        Zarvos v Pradhan: two branches: subjective desire + objective possibility
    - - proof of intention same as (f)
        
        Zarvos v Pradhan: subjective desire + objective reality
        
        Betty's cafe:intention at the date of hearing + must be genuine
      - s 30(2): L must have own the interst for five years
        
        HL Bolton: purchase just mean buying for money