Broadway Investments Hackney Ltd v Grant

Broadway Investments Hackney Ltd v Grant

The tenancy was a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 from the time the defendant began trading from the premises, as business use was a significant and required purpose under the lease. Therefore, the District Judge was correct to grant possession and refuse relief on the basis that the tenancy was not an assured tenancy. The appeal judge erred in setting aside the possession order and substituting a suspended order without proper basis.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Broadway Investments Hackney Limited; Respondent/defendant: Lowell Gerald Grant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Business Tenancy, Assured Tenancy, Forfeiture, Arrears of Rent, Statutory Protection, Relief From Forfeiture
Landlord and Tenant Law Property Law Civil Procedure Business Tenancy Assured Tenancy Forfeiture Arrears of Rent Statutory Protection +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 5 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenancy was a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 or an assured tenancy under the Housing Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge erred in granting possession and refusing relief from forfeiture
  3. 3 Whether the appeal judge was correct to set aside the possession order and substitute a suspended order

Ratio Decidendi

The tenancy was a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 from the time the defendant began trading from the premises, as business use was a significant and required purpose under the lease. Therefore, the District Judge was correct to grant possession and refuse relief on the basis that the tenancy was not an assured tenancy. The appeal judge erred in setting aside the possession order and substituting a suspended order without proper basis.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Possession order in 28 days unless arrears paid in accordance with section 138(3) of the County Courts Act 1984
  • Order for payment of rent arrears