Ganton House Investments Limited v Punch Pub Company (VPR) Limited & Ors

Time for lodging an appellant’s notice may be extended where the delay is short, no prejudice is apparent, and the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success. At the permission stage, the court need not determine the merits of the appeal. It is sufficient that the proposed grounds are properly arguable.

Whether an agreement expressed to be supplemental to a lease incorporates its terms without varying the lease may depend on the wording and conveyancing context. It is also properly arguable whether ancillary parking rights are enjoyed in connection with the holding for the purposes of a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and what date is relevant to that question.

Punch Pub Company (VPR) Limited sought permission to appeal out of time from preliminary findings of His Honour Judge Masterman in the Cardiff County Court. The dispute concerned parking rights granted to Ganton House Investments Limited in connection with a betting-shop lease.

The county court had held that the parking rights formed part of the tenancy, continued during renewal under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and could be included in the terms of a new tenancy. Punch challenged those conclusions and applied for an extension of time and permission to appeal.

1. Extension of time. The applicable period for lodging an appellant’s notice was 14 days under CPR 52.4(2)(b), not 28 days. The delay was short, there was no apparent prejudice to Ganton, and the proposed appeal had substance. Time was therefore extended.
2. Meaning of “supplemental”. Punch’s argument that the expression had the effect described in section 58 of the Law and Property Act 1925 was plainly arguable. In a professionally drawn conveyancing document, “supplemental” could be understood as shorthand for treating the later agreement as reciting the terms of the earlier lease, rather than incorporating the later agreement’s terms into that lease. The wording appeared apt for a separate agreement and did not expressly make breach of it a breach of a lease covenant.
3. Parking rights and renewal. It was also properly arguable that the parking rights were not enjoyed in connection with the holding within section 32(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The court could consider whether the relevant date was the expiry of the original lease or the later renewal hearing, and whether the parties to the 1998 agreement could be bound by an order under section 29.
4. Permission to appeal was granted on both grounds. The costs of the application were made costs in the appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): granted Punch permission to appeal out of time from preliminary determinations made by His Honour Judge Masterman in the Cardiff County Court. The appeal was not determined on its merits.