Harmohinder Singh Gill (as Trustee of the Gilcrest UK Pension Scheme) v Lees News Limited
[2023] EWHC 403 (Ch)
Harmohinder Singh Gill (as Trustee of the Gillcrest UK Pension Scheme) v Lees News Limited
12 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1178
Court of Appeal
A landlord tried to stop a tenant getting a new lease because of past problems, like late rent and disrepair. The judge said the tenant had fixed the problems and gave them a new lease. The higher court agreed, saying the judge considered everything correctly—not just individual issues but the overall fairness to the landlord.
Key Facts
- •Lees News Ltd (tenant) requested new tenancies under section 26 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
- •The landlord (Gill) opposed the grant, citing disrepair (tenant's breach of repairing covenant), persistent rent delays, and other substantial breaches of covenant.
- •The judge found that disrepair had been remedied by the hearing, rent delays were minor, and other breaches were not substantial.
- •The judge granted new tenancies, finding the landlord hadn't established the tenant 'ought not' to receive them.
- •The tenant had concealed a contract for repairs and initially denied needing major works.
- •The tenant's actions came to light during interlocutory hearings, leading to further disclosure orders.
Legal Principles
The material time for assessing the state of repair under section 30(1)(a) is not solely the date of the notice or counter-notice, but considers the state of repair at both the date of the notice and the date of the hearing. Subsequent events are relevant.
Betty’s Cafes Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd [1957] Ch 67, [1959] AC 20; Lyons v Central Commercial Properties London Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 869; Hazel v Akhtar [2001] EWCA Civ 1883
In determining whether a tenant 'ought not' to be granted a new tenancy, the court considers the fairness to the landlord, having regard to the tenant's past behavior, and whether it would be unfair to require the landlord to re-enter into a legal relationship with the tenant. This is a value judgment considering all relevant factors, not just those specific to one ground of opposition.
Lyons v Central Commercial Properties London Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 869; Horne & Meredith Properties v Cox [2014] EWCA Civ 423; Hutchinson v Lamberth [1984] 1 EGLR 75; Eichner v Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Co Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 1120; Hazel v Akhtar [2001] EWCA Civ 1883
The court may consider the tenant's conduct during the litigation as it relates to the grounds of opposition, though this is not solely determinative and should not be considered in isolation from other factors.
Horne & Meredith Properties v Cox [2014] EWCA Civ 423; Kent v Guest [2021] EWHC 51 (Ch)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The judge correctly applied the law in considering both the state of repair at the time of the notice and the hearing, and in making an overall value judgment on whether it would be fair to the landlord to grant a new tenancy. The tenant's conduct, while unsatisfactory, did not outweigh other factors.