Q&A: Where do the boundaries lie?
Georgina Redsell and David Nicholls (Landmark Chambers) answer a query on building leases and intention to redevelop post-Franses.
Question
I am a landlord of commercial premises, which are let on a tenancy protected by Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The contractual term will shortly end and I want to oppose renewal on the ground of redevelopment, with a view to selling the property to a developer after obtaining vacant possession. However, I have been advised this may be problematic if the tenant refuses to leave and I am considering granting a building lease instead. Will the Supreme Court’s decision in Franses Ltd v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd [2018] UKSC 62; [2019] EGLR 4 affect my ability to obtain vacant possession if I enter into a building lease simply for the purpose of satisfying ground (f)?
Answer
Although the practical consequences of Franses are yet to be worked out by the courts, as long as your intention to redevelop can be demonstrated both subjectively and objectively by the date of the hearing, then it is unlikely that your tenant will have grounds for challenge. You should ensure that you have entered into an agreement for a building lease by the date of the hearing.
Explanation
In order to satisfy ground (f), the proposed redevelopment has to be carried out by the landlord, which is why it is not enough to intend to sell to a developer on obtaining vacant possession. A building lease therefore provides a means by which a landlord may satisfy ground (f) of section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the 1954 Act) and redevelop his premises. Whereas under an ordinary building contract, the redevelopment works are done by contractors on behalf of the landlord usually in return for remuneration; under a building lease the contractors do the works in exchange for the grant of the lease.
To establish your “intention” under ground (f) you must prove that you intend – objectively and subjectively – to carry out the redevelopment at the date of the hearing. The subjective intention must be genuine as well as sufficiently firm and settled. Franses has confirmed that it must also be unconditional so that the landlord must intend to carry out the same works even if the tenant left voluntarily.
It is well established that a landlord’s subjective intention to do the works can be satisfied where the works are to be done by a third party, such as a building contractor or a new tenant under a building lease.
However the works are done, the most important criterion is that the landlord retains control: eg the landlord should have control of which works are going to be done and how. This can be ensured through appropriate obligations in the building lease. Provided the landlord retains control, it does not matter that the plans for the redevelopment come from the prospective tenant or developer rather than the landlord and building leases are therefore a recognised means by which a landlord can establish the requisite intention under ground (f).
That said, it is important to note that a very short building lease may cast doubt on the genuineness of the landlord’s intention, perhaps because the term is insufficient for the works to be done or because the value of the lease granted is insufficiently remunerative. But in Turner v Wandsworth LBC [1994] 1 EGLR 134 a four-year term was held to be sufficiently long.
A new test
The facts in Franses were extreme: the landlord put forward a scheme of works solely as a means of obtaining possession. The works ran the risk of the tenant’s premises becoming unusable and they would not have been undertaken if the tenant voluntarily vacated. The Supreme Court ruled that a landlord’s intention to redevelop must exist independently of the tenant’s statutory claim to a new tenancy, finding for the tenant because the landlord’s intention was conditional on whether the tenant chose to assert its claim to a new tenancy. A new test has been introduced: would the landlord do the same works if the tenant left voluntarily?
Applying this test to your situation, it is necessary to consider whether using the medium of a building lease could be considered a contrivance to secure possession artificially. Unless it could be demonstrated that the building lease was a sham, it seems unlikely that a tenant could successfully argue that your intention is not genuine.
Furthermore, the date at which you establish your intention is the date of the hearing so it does not matter that you may have considered other options (such as a sale) in the past. In fact, this is precisely what happened in Spook Erection Ltd v British Railways Board [1988] 1 EGLR 76. The landlord originally intended to sell to a supermarket chain but, when it became clear that the tenant would not vacate, the landlord entered into a building lease.
Important distinction
Moreover, there is an important distinction between deliberately seeking to avoid the 1954 Act’s protection by manufacturing a contrived set of works and acknowledging the 1954 Act’s existence by entering into a building lease.
In Santander UK plc v LPC Estates Ltd [2018] EWHC 2193 (Ch) – decided before Franses – a tenant made an unsuccessful application for permission to appeal from a decision granting a termination order by trying to argue that the landlord’s intention to grant a building lease was a deliberate attempt to defeat the Act. Given that building leases have been accepted as a means whereby a landlord can demonstrate the intention to redevelop since the 1950s, this argument was rejected (Gilmour Caterers v St Bartholomew’s Hospital Governors [1956] 1 QB 387).
The full implications of Franses are still to be worked out by the courts. A landlord may previously have been somewhat relaxed about having entered into the building lease prior to the hearing (AJA Smith Transport v British Railways Board [1981] 1 EGLR 54). However, in light of Franses you would be well advised to have signed on the dotted line prior to trial. That way you will be contractually bound to carry out the works and it will be much harder to question whether your intention is conditional.
This article was written by Georgina Redsell and David Nicholls (Landmark Chambers). For more information, please contact Georgina on georgina.redsell@crsblaw.com or +44 (0)20 7203 8897.
This article was first published in the Estates Gazette.
Our thinking
Hope Barton
Q&A: The qualifying criteria explained
What do landlords need to prove to satisfy ground (g) of section 30(1) of the 1954 Act for the purposes of a new tenancy?
Michael Lingens
Charles Russell Speechlys has advised the owners of The Centre for Reproductive and Genetic Health (CRGH) on its sale to FutureLife
CRGH is the largest private fertility clinic in the London IVF market.
Naomi Heathcote
Green leases crucial to achieving net zero in the built environment
‘Net zero’ requires emissions to be reduced as far as possible, and for the remaining (or ‘residual’) emissions to be removed or captured.
Faye Cunningham
Closing the loophole or cumbersome rules? Beneficial owners of non-UK companies acquiring property within the UK to reveal their true identities
Samuel Lear
Samuel Lear answers the EG Legal Q&A on code rights
Q&A: Code rights queries answered
Claire Fallows
Politics, planning & life sciences clusters
Charlotte Duly
Retail Bulletin quotes Charlotte Duly on the House of Zana trademark row with Zara
"In this battle of David and Goliath, the little guy has come out on top."
David Coates
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Puma Private Equity on its investment into MUSO
We have advised long-term client Puma Private Equity on its investment into MUSO TNT Limited.
Helen Coward
FT Ignites Europe quotes Helen Coward on portfolio manager bonuses
"HMRC has had asset managers in their spotlight for some time now"
Emma Preece
Success for landlords as Court of Appeal dismiss cinema operators' appeal on COVID-19 arrears
Mark Howard
IT Pro quotes Mark Howard on investment in UK tech start-ups
"The UK has the strongest venture and growth capital funding ecosystem in Europe.”
Christopher Hadnutt
Chris Hadnutt writes for Building Magazine on construction project defects
Chris Hadnutt writes for Building Magazine on construction project defects
Laura Bushaway
Are the Government’s plans to reform the leasehold and commonhold systems in England and Wales on a break?
Nicola Saccardo
Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Partner Nicola Saccardo to the Firm’s London office
Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Partner Nicola Saccardo
Simon Ridpath
Charles Russell Speechlys announces 24% international revenue growth
Charles Russell Speechlys announces 24% international revenue growth
Michael Powner
Barrister with gender critical beliefs discriminated against by chambers
An employment tribunal has found that the barrister, Allison Bailey was discriminated against because of her gender critical beliefs.
Sarah Morley
The new UK register of overseas entities – the impact on property transactions
The Economic Crime Act establishes a new register of beneficial ownership of overseas entities, read the implications here.
Piers Master
Register of Overseas Entities: What are the deadlines for trust structures holding UK real estate?
The ROE is intended to launch on 1 August 2022 - read more about the deadlines trust structures holding UK real estate will be facing
Emma Preece
EG quotes Emma Preece on the Cine-UK and Cineworld Court of Appeal Covid rent arrears ruling
“This appeal was always going to be an uphill battle for the tenants.”
David Savage
Construction News quotes David Savage on a recent fire safety ruling and the implications of this
"Although clearly fact-specific as any case is, this is an interesting and important case..."