Wessex Reserve Forces v White & Anor

Wessex Reserve Forces v White & Anor

The landlord failed to establish the ground of opposition under section 30(1)(f) because, on the evidence, the tenant was obliged and intended to remove all buildings (except possibly the stone stall) at the end of the tenancy, and the landlord could not have an intention to demolish buildings that would not be present. As to the stone stall, the tenant was willing to remove it or allow the landlord access, so the landlord could not show it needed possession to demolish it.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: The Wessex Reserve Forces; Defendant/appellant: MEJ White; Defendant/appellant: EP White
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Business Tenancies, Renewal of Tenancy, Grounds for Opposition to New Tenancy, Intention to Demolish Premises
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Business Tenancies Renewal of Tenancy Grounds for Opposition to New Tenancy Intention to Demolish Premises

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Wessex Reserve Forces

Claimant/respondent

MEJ White

Defendant/appellant

EP White

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord had made out the ground of opposition under section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (intention to demolish) so as to defeat the tenant's application for a new tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord failed to establish the ground of opposition under section 30(1)(f) because, on the evidence, the tenant was obliged and intended to remove all buildings (except possibly the stone stall) at the end of the tenancy, and the landlord could not have an intention to demolish buildings that would not be present. As to the stone stall, the tenant was willing to remove it or allow the landlord access, so the landlord could not show it needed possession to demolish it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal, excluding the costs of the respondent's notice, which are to be set-off against the costs of the appeal