Pumperninks of Piccadilly Ltd v Land Securities plc and others
Pumperninks of Piccadilly Ltd v Land Securities plc and others
- 2002
- Weekly Law Reports [2002] 3 WLR 898-930(33) Property, Planning and Compensation Reports [2003] 1 P&CR 205-238(34) .
[2002] EWCA Civ 671, 10 May 2002. Defendant (L) demised to the tenant (P) a 25 year underlease for a shop forming part of a building defined as excluding all structural and loadbearing parts (an eggshell tenancy). L opposed P's application to renew the tenancy on the ground that it intended to demolish the demised premises or a substantial part of them, relying on Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 as amended by the Law of Property Act 1969 s 30(1)(f), 31A(1)(a). P's application was refused because (a) the tenant's part of the building could be demolished with the landlord having to gain possession in order to carry out intended works (b) P was not entitled to rely on s31A(1)(a) of the Act. "Held" (1) "demolish" and "reconstruct" in their ordinary meaning could be applied to the subject matter of an eggshell tenancy for the purpose of s31(1)(f) of the Act. (2) The condition in s31A(1)(a) of the Act was not satisfied and L could not reasonably carry out the works without obtaining possession. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk/.
EGGSHELL TENANCIES
PUMPERNINKS OF PICCADILLY LTD V LAND SECURITIES PLC AND OTHERS
DEMISED PREMISES
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1969 S7(1)
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1969 S30(1)(F)
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1969 S31A(1)(A)
HEATH V DROWN
SECURITY OF TENURE
DECCA NAVIGATOR CO LTD V GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
REDFERN V REEVES
[2002] EWCA Civ 671, 10 May 2002. Defendant (L) demised to the tenant (P) a 25 year underlease for a shop forming part of a building defined as excluding all structural and loadbearing parts (an eggshell tenancy). L opposed P's application to renew the tenancy on the ground that it intended to demolish the demised premises or a substantial part of them, relying on Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 as amended by the Law of Property Act 1969 s 30(1)(f), 31A(1)(a). P's application was refused because (a) the tenant's part of the building could be demolished with the landlord having to gain possession in order to carry out intended works (b) P was not entitled to rely on s31A(1)(a) of the Act. "Held" (1) "demolish" and "reconstruct" in their ordinary meaning could be applied to the subject matter of an eggshell tenancy for the purpose of s31(1)(f) of the Act. (2) The condition in s31A(1)(a) of the Act was not satisfied and L could not reasonably carry out the works without obtaining possession. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk/.
EGGSHELL TENANCIES
PUMPERNINKS OF PICCADILLY LTD V LAND SECURITIES PLC AND OTHERS
DEMISED PREMISES
LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1969 S7(1)
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1969 S30(1)(F)
LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1969 S31A(1)(A)
HEATH V DROWN
SECURITY OF TENURE
DECCA NAVIGATOR CO LTD V GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
REDFERN V REEVES