The High Court has dismissed a landlord’s appeal against a decision that a pub company was entitled to a new tenancy of its premises, the landlord having failed to establish that it intended to carry out works on the premises and could not do so without obtaining possession of it, under Section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The Court’s ruling also clarifies the requirement in Section 30(1)(f) that the landlord must intend to carry out the works ‘on the termination of the current tenancy’.
The premises consisted of a pub on the ground floor, storage space and staff accommodation on the first and second floors, and a beer garden. The landlord intended to reconstruct and extend the existing building to provide a pub on the ground floor and six flats on the upper floors, and build houses on the beer garden. It therefore opposed the grant of a new tenancy under Section 30(1)(f).
The county court judge found that the landlord had failed to establish its ground of opposition because it had not shown that there was a real chance of its directors providing guarantees of sufficient value to support its borrowing to fund the works. The pub company was therefore entitled to a new tenancy.
The county court judge also found that although it would take between 10 and 14 months after obtaining possession of the premises to be ready start the building works, that was a reasonable time in the circumstances and so was ‘on the termination of the current tenancy’.
The landlord appealed to the High Court on the ground that the judge should have concluded that it had shown it had a real prospect of obtaining funding for the works and had therefore made out the ground of opposition under Section 30(1)(f). The pub company filed a respondent’s notice contending that the judge’s decision should be upheld for a number of reasons, including that a delay of 10-14 months was not a reasonable time within which to start the works.
In the Court of Appeal the landlord’s arguments were rejected. The Court of Appeal reached the conclusion that there was no real prospect of obtaining funding, because no evidence had been given that guarantees from the directors would be considered satisfactory.
The Court of Appeal went on to consider whether the judge had been right to conclude that the landlord had established that the works would be carried out within a reasonable time of obtaining possession. In the Court’s view, the judge had addressed a subtly different question from the one required by Section 30(1)(f).
The question was not whether the delay was reasonable in the circumstances but whether the landlord intended to carry out the works by a reasonable time after the termination of the tenancy. The judge should have held that the landlord had not proved it intended to do so.
The case emphasises the need for landlords to carefully cover all the detailed points in section 30(1)(f) if they wish to prove the redevelopment ground
Pridewell Properties (London) Ltd v Spirit Pub Company (Managed) Ltd [2026] EWHC 953
