In the case of Pridewell Properties (London) Ltd v Spirit Pub Company (Managed) Ltd [2026] EWHC 953 (Ch) the High Court considered a Landlord’s opposition to a Tenant’s claim for a new lease under the redevelopment ground of Section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 (the “1954 Act”).
Of particular interest to Landlords and Tenants will be the Court’s approach to the Landlord’s intention to carry out the redevelopment of the premises on the termination of the current tenancy and the time at which those works would commence.
The question of how quickly a Landlord intends to begin redevelopment works after termination of the tenancy is not new. The Court has considered this issue in several earlier cases, but the outcome will always depend on the particular facts of a case.
Background
Since October 2007, the Tenant had occupied the Railway Bell pub in London pursuant to a commercial lease. The Landlord intended to undertake redevelopment works which would include three new mews houses being built in the beer garden of the pub and the redevelopment of the existing pub and the upper floors.
The case was heard initially in the Mayor’s & City of London Court with the consideration of whether the Landlord had a reasonable prospect of:-
- Obtaining the planning permission for the development;
- Securing the funding for the development scheme; and
- Carrying out the works on the termination of the current tenancy.
In addition to these main hurdles, the Landlord also faced difficulties relating to restrictive covenants registered against its title.
HHJ Helman sitting in the Mayor’s & City of London Court held that the timing of the intended works was a ‘reasonable time’ and therefore satisfied the ground of opposition on that point. The Court, however, was not satisfied that the Landlord was able to show it had a real prospect of obtaining the funding for the development. Therefore, the Court determined that the Tenant was entitled to a new lease and the Landlord’s opposition failed.
The Landlord appealed the Court’s decision.
The Tenant responded to the appeal and in particular raised issue with the Court’s conclusion that the Landlord’s intention to undertake the work was within a reasonable period of time of termination of the current tenancy.
Ground (f) of Section 30(1) of the 1954 Act states as follows “that on termination of the current tenancy, the Landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises comprised in the holding, or a substantial part of those premises or to carry out substantial work of construction on the holding or part thereof and that he could not reasonably do so without obtaining possession of the holding”.
The main point, therefore, was whether the works would be undertaken “on termination of the tenancy” and what is a reasonable time within the bounds of that definition.
The Appeal
On appeal, the Landlord again failed to establish it had a real prospect of being able to obtain funding for the development. However, of interest to practitioners as well as relevant parties to a Lease, is the Court’s consideration of what could be a “reasonable time” to undertake the works when relying on a Ground (f) opposition.
In this case, the Landlord had not already obtained planning permission for his redevelopment scheme before the Trial, nor had it even applied for that permission.
The Court did not consider the absence of planning permission as a bar to relying on this particular ground of opposition, but it would mean that the Court would have to consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining that permission at a later point and, if such permission were obtained, whether it allows the works to commence on the termination of the current tenancy.
The planning permission in this case could take between 10-14 months after securing possession of the premises by the Landlord and for the Landlord to be able to commence the building works. The question, therefore, was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances of this case to conclude that the Landlord intended to commence the works on the termination of the tenancy.
Timing has been considered in previous cases, such as the Court of Appeal case of Reohorn v Barry Corporation [1956], where the Court had determined that it was not necessary for the Landlord to have their contractors on the site the day after their possession was obtained from the Tenant, but work would begin “not at any long-delayed time but on the termination of the tenancy”. In another case of Edwards v Thompson [1990], the period of time considered reasonable was a matter of months or possibly longer.
Whilst the Courts appear to apply a certain amount of leeway on what is a reasonable time within the circumstances of a case, and whilst the works may not start on the day that the Landlord obtains possession, if the Landlord then leaves the property unoccupied or is unable to commence the works due to other requirements, the Court may well find that the Landlord does not intend to do the works on the termination of the tenancy within the definition of the 1954 Act.
The Landlord in this case failed in its appeal and the Court concluded that the works would not be undertaken upon the termination of the tenancy. The Tenant was therefore entitled to a new tenancy.
Point to Note
This case is of significance to those Landlords looking to redevelop their premises and the importance of the time in which the works can commence following termination of the tenancy.
A Landlord will need to balance the costs of applying for and securing planning permission in advance of the trial, as well as an aim to achieve confirmation of funding of the project in order to prove both the intention required and the reasonable time within which the work would be expected to be undertaken, if the Landlord is going to satisfy a Ground (f) opposition. As with all cases, they will turn on their own facts and the length of time or delay in commencing those works will vary from project to project.
Landlords should consider, when granting new Leases, whether to include clauses to enable the Landlord to undertake investigations prior to the termination of the term with a view to progressing a redevelopment promptly upon the Lease terminating. In addition, incorporating a redevelopment break option within the Lease terms may be beneficial to a Landlord.
From a Tenant’s perspective, the case provides guidance on challenging a Section 25 Notice based on the redevelopment ground, especially if a Landlord is unable to prove to a Court that it will be able to undertake the works of redevelopment within a reasonable period of time following termination of the tenancy.
If you need advice on commercial lease renewals, whether as a Landlord or a Tenant, please contact on 0345 646 0406 and a member of our team will be in touch.