Broadway Investments Hackney Ltd v Grant [2006] EWCA Civ 1709 (20 December 2006)

Broadway Investments Hackney Ltd v Grant [2006] EWCA Civ 1709 (20 December 2006)

The tenancy was a business tenancy under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 because the premises were occupied for significant business purposes as required by the lease, and therefore could not be an assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1988. The District Judge's possession order was correct and should not have been set aside.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1709
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Broadway Investments Hackney Limited; Respondent / Defendant: Lowell Gerald Grant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Shoreditch County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; possession order restored
Legal Topics
Business Tenancies, Assured Tenancies, Forfeiture, Possession Proceedings, Rent Arrears, Relief From Forfeiture
Landlord and Tenant Law Property Law Civil Procedure Business Tenancies Assured Tenancies Forfeiture Possession Proceedings Rent Arrears +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Broadway Investments Hackney Limited

Appellant / Claimant

Lowell Gerald Grant

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Shoreditch County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenancy was a business tenancy under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 or an assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge was correct to make a possession order based on the status of the tenancy
  3. 3 Whether the appeal judge erred in setting aside the possession order and substituting a suspended order

Ratio Decidendi

The tenancy was a business tenancy under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 because the premises were occupied for significant business purposes as required by the lease, and therefore could not be an assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1988. The District Judge's possession order was correct and should not have been set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; possession order restored

Orders

  • Order for possession in 28 days unless arrears paid in full by that date
  • Order for payment of rent arrears