Harmohinder Singh Gill (as Trustee of the Gilcrest UK Pension Scheme) v Lees News Limited
[2023] EWHC 403 (Ch)
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Mellcraft Limited
11 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 539 (Ch)
High Court
A business rented a flat and lived there. When the lease ended, they wanted to renew it. The landlord said no, because they planned to use the flat for homeless people. A judge said the business could renew, and the landlord appealed. The High Court agreed with the first judge, saying the business used the flat enough for business purposes and the landlord's plan to rent it out to others did not count as them using it for their business.
Key Facts
- •Mellcraft Limited (Respondent) leased a flat from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Appellant).
- •The lease expired, and the Respondent claimed a new lease under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
- •The Appellant opposed the new lease, arguing the Respondent didn't occupy the property for business purposes and that the Appellant intended to occupy it for providing temporary housing to homeless families.
- •Preliminary issues were tried before Judge Monty KC, who ruled in favor of the Respondent.
- •The Appellant appealed to the High Court.
Legal Principles
A company can occupy property through a manager.
Pegler v Craven [1952] 2 QB 69
For a tenancy to be a 'business tenancy', the business use must not be merely incidental to residential use.
Cheryl Investments Ltd v Saldanha [1978] 1 WLR 1329
The burden of proof is on the landlord to show a firm intention to occupy the property for business purposes and a reasonable prospect of doing so.
Dolgellau Golf Club v Hett (1998) 76 P & CR 526
Appellate courts should be cautious in interfering with findings of fact by trial judges.
Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5
A landlord usually does not occupy premises if they grant a tenancy with exclusive possession to a tenant.
Graysim Holdings Ltd v P&O Property Holdings Ltd [1996] AC 326 HL
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The High Court found no error of law in Judge Monty's decision. The Judge's evaluation of evidence regarding business occupation was a matter for him, and the court saw no basis to interfere. The Appellant's intention to grant tenancies rather than licences meant they wouldn't retain sufficient control over the flat to claim occupation for business purposes under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Similar Cases
Harmohinder Singh Gill (as Trustee of the Gillcrest UK Pension Scheme) v Lees News Limited
[2023] EWCA Civ 1178
James Barker v Chantelle Kiran Shokar
[2024] UKUT 17 (LC)
Global 100 Ltd v Carlos Jimenez & Ors
[2023] EWCA Civ 1243
S Franses Limited & Anor v Block 6 Ashley Gardens Roof Gardens Limited & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2880 (Ch)