12 Days of Christmas 2025 - Day 11

Spirit Pub Co (Managed) London Ltd v Pridewell Properties (London) Ltd

In the penultimate day of our 12 Days of Christmas feature, we take a look back at a County Court decision on opposed business tenancy renewals which highlighted the importance of having all the evidence necessary to demonstrate the relevant possession ground.

The facts

The tenant was seeking to renew their business tenancy to continue operating a public house at the premises. The landlord opposed the renewal on the basis it intended to redevelop the premises into residential accommodation, which would require vacant possession.

The landlord relied on ground (f) of section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant 1954 Act, which allows refusal of renewal if the landlord intends to demolish, reconstruct or carry out substantial construction works at the premises and cannot reasonably do so without possession. The Court had to decide whether the landlord’s redevelopment plans were sufficiently firm, funded, and executable within a reasonable timeframe.

The decision

At the date of the hearing, there were a number of obstacles still to overcome before any redevelopment could take place:

1. Planning permission was not yet granted and the local authority's pre-application advice suggested the Council would object to the demolition of the public house.
2. Restrictive covenants dating back to 1870 which had potential to impact the landlord's plans.
3. Funding had not yet been secured for the development.

Despite the landlord having resolved to undertake the development, the tenant argued that this decision had been accelerated as a result of the renewal proceedings and that the landlord did not have the necessary intention to undertake the works. The Court disagreed, finding that the landlord had a firm and settled intention to redevelop despite the obstacles still to be overcome. However, the Court did not consider that there was sufficient evidence that the landlord would be able to overcome all of the hurdles listed above, in particular, the ability to secure funding. This was due to the fact that the tenant had not provided any evidence that the directors/shareholders of the company would be in a position to give the personal guarantees that the Court considered would be needed in order to obtain the necessary funding. On that basis, the tenant was successful in defeating the landlord's ground (f) claim.

As to timing, in order to be able to succeed in a ground (f) claim, a landlord must demonstrate that it intends to commence works "on the determination of the current tenancy" which the Courts have accepted means "within a reasonable time". Here, the landlord estimated that works would commence within 10-14 months of the lease expiry. This was described by the Court as "an exceptionally long period to count as a reasonable time". However, the Court acknowledged that "what is reasonable is highly fact-specific" and found, on the facts of this case, that the timeframe was a reasonable one.

And for our penultimate festive joke of the year…Why don't you ever see Santa in hospital? Because he has private elf-care!