The case concerns a large pub in east London let to the Spirit group of companies.
The landlord, which was a special purpose vehicle company, saw the potential of building three new houses in the beer garden and served notice on Spirit seeking to redevelop the property using the redevelopment ground (f) under Section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
The substantial issues turned on various points about the proposed redevelopment – ie planning permission, funding and whether an indemnity policy was required for a restrictive covenant issue. The County Court judge decided that the landlord had failed to meet the necessary tests in ground (f) and the Court of Appeal agreed with that decision.
However the case also considered the timing issue under ground (f). The requirement under the Act states that the works must begin “on the termination of the current tenancy”
In this case the landlord said that its works would begin within 10 to 14 months of possession being granted. The County Court judge felt that this timescale fell within the words “on the termination of the current tenancy”
However the Court of Appeal disagreed. They said that the County Court judge had answered the wrong question. The test was not – “what is a reasonable delay?” It is the strict wording in the Act – ie does the landlord intend to carry out the works at (or within a reasonably short time of) the termination of the tenancy?
As the landlord failed to establish ground (f) the case was remitted back to the county court where the court will decide the terms of Spirit’s new business tenancy. No doubt the landlord will seek a redevelopment break clause in any new tenancy.
Pridewell Properties (London) Ltd v Spirit Pub Company (Managed) Ltd [2026] EWHC 953
