Tenancy at will — Barclays Wealth Trustees (Jersey) Ltd v Erimus Housing Ltd
By Cassandra Cartwright
The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court decision that a tenant, which remained in occupation of commercial premises after its contracted-out lease had expired, did so on the basis of an implied annual periodic tenancy. Instead, says the Court of Appeal, it was a tenancy at will.
- The negotiations between the landlord and tenant for a replacement lease were without any urgency or impetus. However, because those negotiations were never actually abandoned, the Court of Appeal was willing to find that the parties always intended that a new lease would actually be entered into.
- Once the tenant announced an intention to vacate the premises, it was inappropriate for the court to find that a need for security of tenure arose at that point, to cover the period to the tenant’s proposed departure date.
- The continuing nature of the lease negotiations and a joint intention that a new lease be granted — until such time as one of the parties changed their mind — meant that the tenant’s occupation was as a tenant at will.
- This would be the case particularly where it was intended that the new lease itself be contracted out of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
The ‘client’, for the purposes of a service provision change under TUPE, may include the plural.
SPCs and combination products: basic patent on a sole ingredient cannot double as basic patent for combination
On 12 March 2015 the CJEU gave its ruling in Actavis v Boehringer Ingelheim, yet another reference from the UK courts regarding the interpretation of the SPC Regulation 469/2009.