EI Group Plc v Clarke & Anor (Rev 1)

EI Group Plc v Clarke & Anor (Rev 1)

The arbitrator made an error of law by treating the existing tied lease as the benchmark for assessing whether the tenant would be 'worse off' under the proposed MRO tenancy, contrary to s.42(3)(b) of the 2015 Act. However, the error did not substantially affect the outcome because the arbitrator gave independent and sufficient alternative reasons for his decisions on all material issues.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: EI Group PLC; Defendant/respondent: John Clarke; Defendant/respondent: Lesley Minnett
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S.69(3) Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Market Rent Only Option, Pubs Code, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, Arbitration Appeals, Reasonableness of Lease Terms
Arbitration Landlord and Tenant Statutory Interpretation Market Rent Only Option Pubs Code Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 Arbitration Appeals Reasonableness of Lease Terms

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EI Group PLC

Claimant/applicant

John Clarke

Defendant/respondent

Lesley Minnett

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Under S.69(3) Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator erred in law in interpreting s.42(3)(b) of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 as requiring a comparison between the tenant's position under the proposed MRO tenancy and the existing tied tenancy rather than with a free-of-tie tenancy
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's error, if any, would substantially affect the rights of the parties

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator made an error of law by treating the existing tied lease as the benchmark for assessing whether the tenant would be 'worse off' under the proposed MRO tenancy, contrary to s.42(3)(b) of the 2015 Act. However, the error did not substantially affect the outcome because the arbitrator gave independent and sufficient alternative reasons for his decisions on all material issues.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal under s.69(3) Arbitration Act 1996 refused