No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
COMPENSATION FOR BUSINESS TENANTS: MISCHIEF AND MALADY
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2020
Abstract
This article focuses upon the provisions and underlying policy of the Landlord and Tenant Acts of 1927 and 1954. It surveys the mischief that each Act was designed to address and, from the perspective of compensation for business tenants, examines critically the legislative response. It demonstrates that the safeguards afforded by the 1927 Act were poorly conceived, ill-constructed and ineffectual. Although the 1954 Act was intended to instil simplicity, certainty and fairness, it fails on all counts. The law remains highly technical, unduly complex, arbitrary in operation and in need of major overhaul.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2020
Footnotes
*
Professor of Property Law, Keele University.
References
1 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, s. 23(3) (defining the tenant's holding to embrace the premises that the tenant occupies for business purposes).
2 The Leasehold Committee, Interim Report on Tenure and Rents of Business Premises (1949) Cmd. 7706, at [38].
3 Megarry, R.E., “Landlord and Tenant Act 1954” [1956] 72 L.Q.R. 21Google Scholar, 21.
4 M. Haley, “Contracting Out and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: The Ascendancy of Market Forces” [2008] Conv. 281.
5 Report from the Select Committee on Town Holdings with the Proceedings of the Committee, House of Commons Papers, 1889, vol. 251.
6 As Lord Silkin, HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 120 (29 June 1954), explained: “it does what we pretend we are very keen on not doing: although we always pretend that we are most keen on maintaining the sanctity of contracts.”
7 Sir Frank Soskice, HC Deb. vol. 528 col. 2480 (18 June 1954).
8 This was not a novel ground as its precursor to is to be found in section 5(3)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. This original exception to renewal was, moreover, of minor importance and rarely invoked. Its abolition was proposed in the Interim Report on Tenure and Rents of Business Premises (1949), at [65].
9 Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd. v Associated British Ports [2011] EWHC 2043 (Ch), at [143] (Vos J.).
10 Ibid., at [143].
11 [2000] 2 E.G.L.R. 45.
12 Leasehold Committee, Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950) Cmd. 7982, at [210].
13 Mr. Turner-Samuels, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1826 (27 January 1954).
14 M. Haley, “Section 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: The Unjust Relegation of Renewal Rights” (2012) 71 C.L.J. 118.
15 [2018] UKSC 62.
16 Governmental Policy on Leasehold Property in England and Wales (1953) Cmd. 8713, at [50].
17 HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 606 (8 July 1954).
18 As J. Montgomerie, “Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954, Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954” (1955) 18 M.L.R. 49, 57, observed: “he may have to pay not only his own but his landlord's costs before he can obtain his rather meagre dues.”
19 Ibid., at 58, commented that the relationship of landlord and tenant is “the plaything of politicians”.
20 Despite having presented the Bill before Parliament, even the Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1763 (27 January 1954) acknowledged that “This basis is, I admit, rough justice, and one may call it arbitrary”.
21 See D.A. Reeder, “The Politics of Urban Leaseholds in Late Victorian England” (1961) 6(3) International Review of Social History 413.
22 D. Englander, Landlord and Tenant in Urban Britain 1838–1918 (Oxford 1983), 5.
23 Nevertheless, M.J. Lyons accepts the truth that “some landlords did conform to the infamous stereotype, some glaringly so”: “British Liberals and Irish Land: The Late Victorian Transformation” (1983) 45 The Historian 167, 168.
24 The Times, 31 October 1913, 9.
25 The League (established in 1906) represented over 200,000 shopkeepers and small businesses in England & Wales (see The Times, 31 October 1913, 9).
26 Montgomerie, “Housing Repairs”, 58.
27 Report from the Select Committee on Town Holdings, at 11, 12. Reeder, “The Politics of Urban Leaseholds”, 422, observes that “The sessions of this Committee became the battleground for the leading protagonists and opponents of the leasehold system”.
28 Mr. Lloyd George, The Times, 31 October 1913, 9.
29 Select Committee Report on Business Premises, House of Commons Papers, 1920, vol. 6, at [4].
30 Mr. Ellis Davies, HC Deb. vol. 204 col. 2334 (7 April 1927).
31 S.P.J. Merlin, The Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, 2nd ed. (London 1931), vii, viii.
32 Mr. Dalton, HC Deb. vol. 204 col. 2315 (7 April 1927).
33 H.A. Hill and A.E. Phelps, A Guide to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (London 1928), xv.
34 See the Scottish Law Commission, Discussion Paper on Aspects of Leases: Termination (2018) Discussion Paper no.165, at [2.1]–[2.17].
35 HL Deb. vol. 326 col. 662 (6 December 1971).
36 Mr. Lloyd George, The Times, 31 October 1913, 9.
37 Mr. Andrew MacLaren, HC Deb. vol. 204 col. 2325 (7 April 1927).
38 See generally M. Haley, The Statutory Regulation of Business Tenancies (Oxford, 2000), [1.02]–[1.15].
39 Sir William Joynson-Hicks, HC Deb. vol. 204 col. 2302 (7 April 1927).
40 See Mr. Dalton, HC Deb. vol. 204 cols. 2315–16 (7 April 1927).
41 See Viscount Cave L.C., HL Deb. vol. 69 col. 310 (29 November 1927).
42 Select Committee Report on Business Premises (1920).
43 Legislation already existed in the agricultural and residential sectors with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1875 and Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915, respectively.
44 Merlin, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, vii.
45 HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 120 (29 June 1954).
46 Select Committee Report on Business Premises (1920), at [23]–[28].
47 It is to be admitted also that, unlike under the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 art. 21, there has never been compensation for the landlord when the tenant withdraws a renewal application or applies for a revocation of the new lease.
48 Mr. MacLaren, HC Deb. vol. 204 col. 2321 (7 April 1927).
49 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950), at [125].
50 Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1864 (27 January 1954).
51 Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, s. 17(1). These concepts continue to pervade the 1954 Act.
52 As Jessel M.R. admitted in Smith v Anderson (1880) 15 Ch. D. 246, 259, “the Legislature could not well have used a larger word”. This case concerned whether an investment trust amounted to a business partnership.
53 Ireland v Taylor [1949] 1 K.B. 300.
54 Comm. of Taxation v Kirk [1900] A.C. 588.
55 Brighton College v Marriott [1926] A.C 192.
56 See Triplerose Ltd. v Beattie [2020] UKUT 180 (LC).
57 Stuchbery v General Accident Fire & Life Assurance [1949] 1 All E.R. 1026.
58 Licences, of course, fell outside the statutory remit.
59 Gough's Garages Ltd. v Pugsley [1930] 1 K.B. 615.
60 Howson v Buxton (1928) 97 L.J. K.B. 749 (an agricultural holding case).
61 These were governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1923.
62 Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, s. 17(1); see O'Callaghan v Elliott [1966] 1 Q.B. 601.
63 This exempted, for example, resident caretakers, gamekeepers, chefs and drivers.
64 Compensation for improvements was, however, available.
65 Interim Report on Tenure and Rents of Business Premises (1949), at [68].
66 Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1762 (27 January 1954).
67 Not merely a predecessor in business: Pasmore v Whitbread & Co. Ltd. [1953] 2 QB 226.
68 See HL Deb. vol. 69 col. 695 (8 December 1927).
69 Lawrence v Sinclair [1949] 2 K.B. 77.
70 Williams v Portman [1951] 2 K.B. 948. 2 QB 126.
71 The tenant could still claim in its own right if it carried on its business for five years.
72 Corsini v Montague Burton Ltd. [1953] 2 Q.B. 126. In contrast, the goodwill amassed by a licensee or sub-tenant could be factored into compensation payable: Butlins Ltd. v Fytche [1948] 1 All E.R. 737.
73 (1930) 46 T.L.R. 271.
74 (1948) 152 E.G. 93.
75 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950), at [139]. The Committee recommended at [189]–[190] that contracting out of compensation rights should be permissible only with the prior approval of the court and when good cause could be shown.
76 HC Deb. vol. 528 col. 2477 (18 June 1954). He had been a member of the Leasehold Committees set up in 1948 and 1950.
77 Christopher Barker & Sons v C.I.R. [1919] 2 K.B. 222, 228 (Rowlatt J.). There a firm of stockbrokers was not carrying out a profession.
78 I.R.C. v Maxse [1919] 1 K.B. 647, 657 (Scrutton L.J.).
79 In Robinson v Groscourt (1700) 87 E.R. 547, performers of music and dance were classified as professionals.
80 See Harman L.J. in Abernethie v A.M. & J. Kleiman [1970] 1 Q.B. 10.
81 Stuchbery v General Accident [1949] 1 All E.R. 1026.
82 See Scrutton L.J. in Whiteman Smith Motor Co. v Chaplin [1934] 2 K.B. 35, 42.
83 Austen v Boys (1858) 27 L.J. Ch. 714.
84 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950), at [127]. It has nothing to do with the non-transferable popularity and personal characteristics of the tenant.
85 As Lord Macnaghten recognised: “Goodwill is composed of a variety of elements. It differs in its composition in different trades and in different businesses in the same trade”: IRC v Muller & Co.'s Margarine Ltd. [1901] A.C. 217, 224.
86 HL Deb. vol. 69 col. 321 (29 November 1927).
87 Stuchbery v General Accident [1949] 1 All E.R. 1026, 1031 (a solicitors’ firm also undertook an insurance agency business from the premises).
88 H Morell & Sons Ltd. v Canter 1947] 2 All E.R. 533.
89 Mullins v Wessex Motors [1947] 2 All E.R. 727.
90 Mr. MacLaren, HC Deb. vol. 204 col. 2325 (7 April 1927).
91 IRC v Muller [1901] A.C. 217, 235 (Lord Lindley).
92 Ibid., at 223, 224 (Lord Macnaghten). Lord Eldon in Cruttwell v Lye (1810) 34 E.R. 129, 130 noted that goodwill is “nothing more than the probability, that the old customers will resort to the old place”.
93 HL Deb. vol. 180 cols. 526–27 (18 February 1953).
94 See G.A.D. Preinreich, “The Law of Goodwill” (1936) 11 The Accounting Review 317 for the various manifestations that may arise.
95 IRC v Muller [1901] A.C. 217, 224.
96 Ibid., at 224 (Lord Macnaghten).
97 Lord Jessel, HL Deb. vol. 69 col. 414 (1 December 1927).
98 Lord Jessel, HL Deb. vol. 69 col. 696 (8 December 1927) lamented that “it passes the wit of both Houses … to find an adequate definition”.
99 Merlin, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, 28.
100 [1934] 2 K.B. 35, 42.
101 Ibid. Lord Meston, HL Deb. vol. 180 col. 526 (18 February 1953) emphasised that “the only type of goodwill that is worth a farthing under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, is the goodwill known as ‘cat goodwill’”.
102 As Hill and Phelps, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, xix, explained: “The proprietor of such a business can be sure of custom at almost any place at which he may choose to open a branch.”
103 Mullins v Wessex Motors [1947] 2 All E.R. 727, 729.
104 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950), at [125].
105 Lord Jessel, HL Deb. vol. 69 col. 695 (8 December 1927).
106 N.E. Mustoe, The Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (London 1928), 36.
107 HL Deb. vol. 69 col. 312 (29 November 1927).
108 Hudd v Matthews (1930) 2 K.B. 197.
109 Whiteman Smith v Chaplin [1934] 2 K.B. 35, 47.
110 See the pronounced dissatisfaction voiced by the Referees (Landlord and Tenant Act 1927) Association, The Times, 7 November 1931, 3.
111 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950), at [124]. As Sir David Maxwell Fyfe acknowledged, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1762 (27 January 1954): “It is one thing to say what the premises are worth, but it is rarely possible to prove how much of that figure has been contributed by the tenant's business.”
112 All references in the 1927 Act are to calendar months.
113 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950), at [135], [203].
114 Ibid., at [135].
115 See Donegal Tweed Co. Ltd. v Stephenson (1929) 45 T.L.R. 503.
116 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950), at [135]. The Committee commented also on the danger of “friendly” negotiations breaking down and leaving the tenant outside the time limits to make a claim.
117 [1952] 1 All E.R. 1344.
118 There was no prescribed form for this notice: Gough's Garages Ltd. v Pugsley [1930] 1 K.B. 615.
119 Simpson v Charrington & Co. Ltd. [1935] A.C. 325.
120 British and Colonial Furniture Co. Ltd. v William Mcllroy Ltd. [1952] 1 K.B. 107.
121 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950), at [136].
122 See British and Colonial Furniture Company Ltd. v William Mcllroy Ltd. [1952] 1 K.B. 107.
123 As Hill and Phelps, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, xxii, appreciated, “if the tenant's claim is well founded no alternative accommodation can preserve his goodwill”.
124 Ibid., at 27, where they also added that “A tenant, therefore, who elects to claim a new lease should be reasonably certain that he will be able to establish his claim”.
125 These were, respectively, owner occupation, pulling down and remodelling of the premises, other forms of redevelopment and promoting estate management.
126 In Terroni v Morelli (1931) 75 S.J. 112, for example, the tenant was awarded £1,393 instead of a new lease.
127 For a detailed analysis of the valuation process see W. Hill's notes in H.A. Hill and T.W. Naylor, A Guide to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, 2nd ed. (London 1934), xv et seq.
128 See Rialto Cinemas Ltd. v Wolfe [1955] 2 All E.R. 530.
129 Whiteman Smith v Chaplin [1934] 2 K.B. 35, 52 (Maugham L.J.).
130 Ibid., at 50 (Maugham L.J.).
131 Lord Parmoor, HL Deb. vol. 69 col. 320 (29 November 1927).
132 [1939] 4 All E.R. 293.
133 Clift v Taylor [1948] 2 K.B. 394.
134 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950), at [126].
135 Ireland v Taylor [1949] 1 K.B. 300.
136 Section 4(1). An argument to the contrary had to be supported by strong witness evidence: Hudd v Matthews (1930) 2 K.B. 197.
137 HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1762 (27 January 1954). As Maugham L.J. commented in Whiteman Smith v Chaplin [1934] 2 K.B. 35, 51, “This question must often be a very difficult one to answer otherwise than by an intelligent guess”.
138 See Mariner v Hays Wharf Proprietors (1947) 150 E.G. 344.
139 A Guide to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (London 1928), 19. This outcome was reached in Hopkins v the Master, Wardens & Commonality of Skinners of London [1949] E.G.D. 142.
140 This compensation could not exceed the amount of the loss which the tenant had suffered.
141 Mustoe, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, 48.
142 Simpson v Charrington [1935] A.C. 325, 341 (Lord Macmillan).
143 H.A. Hill and T.W. Naylor, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, 26.
144 E. Foa, The Landlord and Tenant Act 1927: A Memorandum (London 1928), 20.
145 Simpson v Charrington & Co. Ltd. [1934] 1 K.B. 64, 75 (an off-licence).
146 See Kruze v Benskins Brewery Ltd. (1930) Sol. Jo. 379.
147 Simpson v Charrington [1935] A.C. 325, 342 (Lord Macmillan).
148 Dartford Brewery Co. Ltd. v Freeman [1938] 4 All E.R. 78, 82.
149 [1930] A.C. 544.
150 Accordingly, no regard was had to the added value of premises, for example, in Harley Street to doctors and in Hatton Garden to jewellers.
151 Simpson v Charrington [1935] A.C. 325, 342 (Lord Macmillan).
152 Clift v Taylor [1948] 2 K.B. 394, 401.
153 [1950] 1 K.B. 335.
154 Merlin, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, 31.
155 Foa, Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, 21.
156 Whiteman Smith v Chaplin [1934] 2 K.B. 35, 42 (Scrutton L.J.).
157 Interim Report on Tenure and Rents of Business Premises (1949), at [51]. It added at [38] that “The business tenant occupies his premises in order to trade or to pursue his profession: he does not wish to be compensated for being prevented to do so”.
158 Lord Uthwatt had died in the intervening period. Otherwise there was no change to the membership of the Committee.
159 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950), at [145]–[151].
160 As regards professions, the test envisaged was “a substantial diminution in the net profits derived by the tenant” (ibid., at [175]). For non-profit making bodies the test was to be “a substantial increase in the cost or decline in the efficiency of the activities of the concern”.
161 Ibid., at [207].
162 See generally D. Lloyd, “Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1951” (1951) 14 M.L.R. 465. A similar piece of legislation still applies in Scotland in the guise of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949, which caters for a chain of one-year renewals (but no compensation), but is viewed as “an unnecessary anomaly in Scottish commercial lease law” (Scottish Law Commission, Discussion Paper, at [6.9]).
163 Government Policy on Leasehold in England and Wales [1953] Cmd. 8713.
164 Ibid., at [50].
165 “[It] would be very difficult to evaluate justly, would probably lead to much uncertainty and litigation, and would sometimes be an inequitably onerous burden on the landlord” (ibid., at [48]).
166 HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 114 (29 June 1954).
167 Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1764 (27 January 1954).
168 HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 135, 1954 (29 June 1954).
169 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, s. 23(1) covers a “trade, profession or employment and includes any activity carried on by a body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate”.
170 The general rule in section 43(3), however, is that a tenancy granted for a term certain not exceeding six months falls outside the Act.
171 E.g. running a members’ tennis club (Addiscombe Garden Estates Ltd. v Crabbe [1958] 1 Q.B. 513) and supplying residential accommodation for staff (Lee-Verhulst Investments Ltd. v The Harwood Trust [1973] 1 Q.B. 204).
172 This change was part of a package of measures brought forward following a 1989 Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the brewery industry.
173 See Lord Mancroft, HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 630 (8 July 1954).
174 As Lord Ogden, HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 629 (8 July 1954) acknowledged: “the fabric, the building, needs protection … even though the licence comes under special provisions of the licensing Statutes.”
175 For the different meanings and multi-faceted role of “occupation” within the Part II framework, see M. Haley, “Occupation and the Renewal of Business Tenancies: Fact, Fiction and Legal Abstraction” (2007) J.B.L. 759.
176 Whitley v Stumbles [1930] A.C. 544.
177 Land Reclamation Co. Ltd. v Basildon DC [1979] 2 All E.R. 993.
178 Graysim Holdings Ltd. v P&O Property Holdings Ltd. [1995] 4 All ER 831, 842 (HL).
179 This terminology was introduced by the Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England and Wales) Order 2003.
180 The court can make a declaration under section 31(2) that grounds (e) or (f) will be made out within 12 months of the termination date specified in the renewal documentation.
181 This ground of opposition is now framed within section 30(1)(d) of the 1954 Act and is the only mandatory ground that is not also a compensation ground.
182 Sir Frank Soskice, HC Deb. vol. 528 cols. 2479–80 (18 June 1954).
183 Cardshops Ltd. v John Lewis Properties Ltd. [1983] Q.B. 161, 179 (Ackner L.J.).
184 As Sir Frank Soskice, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1792 (27 January 1954) questioned: “Why should the landlord reap the advantage of an added increment in the value of the premises just because the tenant has not sought renewal?”
185 Sun Life Assurance v Racal Tracks Ltd. [2001] EWCA Civ 704.
186 Bacchiocchi v Academic Agency Ltd. [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1313.
187 Report on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II (1969) Law Com. No. 17, at [47].
188 Garrett v Lloyds Bank (unreported) (1982) 7 April (HC) (Walton J.).
189 Mr. West, HC Deb. vol. 528 col. 1859 (18 June 1954) was incredulous, saying: “How can anyone say that an amount equal to the rateable value would adequately compensate that man for being deprived of his property and his business?”
190 International Military Services Ltd. v Capital & Counties plc [1982] 1 W.L.R. 575. There the tenant benefited as the multiplier had been increased since the service of the landlord's termination notice.
191 HL Deb. vol. 180 col. 523, 1953 (18 February). He later lamented that double rate compensation was “mean” and “quite inadequate” (HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 128 (29 June 1954)).
192 Mr. Redwood, HC Deb. vol. 168 col. 41 (26 February 1990).
193 Being based on the annual level of trade (excluding VAT) that a pub is expected to achieve if operated in a reasonably efficient way: see https://www.gov.uk/introduction-to-business-rates/pubs-and-licensed-trade (last accessed 13 July 2020).
194 Lord Williams, HL Deb. vol. 517 col. 416 (22 March 1990).
195 The Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, art. 23(2).
196 Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1868 (27 January 1954).
197 Sir Frank Soskice, HC Deb. vol. 528 col. 2480 (18 June 1954).
198 HL Deb. vol. 180 col. 522 (18 February 1953).
199 Lord Simonds L.C., HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 116 (29 June 1954).
200 Accordingly, the payment of section 37 compensation does not preclude a claim for disturbance under the Land Compensation Act 1973: Evis v Commission for New Towns (unreported) 5 July 2001 (LT).
201 This would afford a bespoke level of compensation. In Jaura v Ahmed [2002] EWCA Civ 210 (CA), for example, compensation was calculated taking on board the loss of profits on sublettings, expenditure on fixtures and fittings and interest.
202 Queen v Trafford Council [2018] EWHC 1687 (Admin), at [1].
203 https://www.fsb.org.uk/standing-up-for-you/policy-issues/local-government-and-communities/business-rates (last accessed 13 July 2020).
204 See the policy paper, HM Treasury Fundamental Review of Business Rates: Terms of Reference, 11 March 2020, available at https://www.gov.uk › business-rates-review-terms-of-reference (last accessed 13 July 2020).
205 The Treasury Committee Report, Impact of Business Rates on Business, 31 October 2019, HC 222 2019–20, 3.
206 See P. Greenhalgh, L. Johnson and V. Huntley, “An Investigation of the Impact of 2017 Business Rates Revaluation on Independent High Street Retailers in the North of England” (2019) 37 Journal of Property Investment & Finance 241.
207 Impact of Business Rates on Business (2019), at 4.
208 See Woolway (Valuation Officer) v Mazars LLP [2015] UKSC 53.
209 See Roberts (Valuation Officer) v Blackhouse Jones Ltd. [2020] UKUT 38 (LC).
210 See Ludgate House Ltd. v Ricketts [2019] UKUT 278 (LC).
211 Section 37(5) emphasises that the outcome of that appeal will dictate the amount of the rateable value for compensation purposes.
212 [1990] R.V.R. 29.
213 Unlike with apportionment, aggregation and deemed rateable values, and due to the mandatory language of section 37(5)(a), there is no scope for appeal to the valuation officer.
214 Guestheath Ltd. v Mirza [1990] 2 E.G.L.R. 111.
215 MacFarquhar v Phillimore [1986] 2 E.G.L.R 89.
216 E. Ahlinder “Business Tenant Protection – For Whom? For What? How? Security of Tenure within UK, Swedish and Australian Law” (2017) 26 Australian Property Law Journal 159, 194.
217 The termination date is that specified in the landlord's section 25 notice or the tenant's section 26 request: section 37(7). It is not necessarily the date the contractual tenancy ends or when the tenant quits the premises.
218 As regards mixed use premises, it is not necessary that the residential occupation be for 14 years.
219 Edicron Ltd. v William Whitely [1984] 1 W.L.R. 59.
220 (1987) 54 P. & C.R. 26.
221 [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1313.
222 Ibid., at 1326.
223 Cramas Properties Ltd. v Connaught Fur Trimmings Ltd. [1965] 1 W.L.R. 892.
224 In Northern Ireland (except as to public authority landlords) no contracting out whatsoever is allowed: the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, art. 24.
225 Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas, HC Deb. vol. 514 col. 2379 (30 April 1953).
226 HC Deb. vol. 528 col. 2476 (18 June 1954).
227 HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 621 (8 July 1954).
228 Ibid. See also Bacchiocchi v Academic Agency [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1313 (Ward L.J.).
229 Mr. West, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1860 (27 January 1954).
230 Mrs White, HC Deb. vol. 528 col. 2482 (18 June 1954).
231 Lord Silkin, HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 620 (29 June 1954).
232 Section 38(2)(b) provides that the five years does not continue if the occupation is by a successor in title who is not also a successor in business.
233 (Unreported) 11 December 2000 (HC).
234 [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1313.
235 In Clift v Taylor [1948] 2 K.B. 394, 400, Scott L.J. bemoaned that the scheme had “not been framed with a clearer exposition of its general purpose and with more precision in the use of terms”.
236 Merlin, The Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, vii.
237 The Times, 3 July 1937, 9.
238 Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1761 (27 January 1954).
239 The Times, 3 February 1937, 11.
240 Lord Hailsham, HL Deb. vol. 326 col. 663 (6 December 1971); see also the views of The Chartered Auctioneers’ and Estate Agents’ Institute, The Times, 26 June 1951, 9.
241 Final Report of the Leasehold Committee (1950), at [141].
242 See Haley, M., “The Statutory Regulation of Business Tenancies: Private Property, Public Interest and Political Compromise” (1999) 19 LS 207Google Scholar.
243 HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 121 (29 June 1954).
244 As Wilkinson, H.W., “The Law Commission Report on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II” (1969) 32 M.L.R. 306CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 307. If the tenant forgoes the right to a new lease by inaction and tardiness, the right to compensation also falls away.
245 Wilkinson, “The Law Commission Report”, 307. Fortunately, that condition was jettisoned in the reforms of 1969.
246 A Periodic Review of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II (1992) Law Com No 208, at [3.29].
247 As Lord Simonds, HL Deb. vol. 188 col. 116 (29 June 1954) predicted: “To some the amount will seem too much; to others it will seem too little.”
248 Mr. West, HC Deb. vol. 522 col. 1858 (27 January 1954).
249 See G. Hammond, “Should Tenants Fear the Rise of the Corporate Landlord?”, The Financial Times, 4 April 2019.
250 See G. James, “Commercial Property Can Save Your Pension”, FT Adviser, 10 April 2019, available at https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019/04/10/commercial-property-can-save-your-pension/?page=3 (last accessed 13 July 2020).
251 Ahlinder, “Business Tenant Protection”, 176–80.
252 Montgomerie, “Housing Repairs”, 58.