Pumperninks of Piccadilly Ltd v Land Securities plc

Under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, s. 30(1)(f), premises in an “eggshell” tenancy may be capable of demolition or reconstruction even where the demise contains no load-bearing structure. The question is fact-sensitive and depends on the physical features included in the tenancy and the work proposed.

Section 31A(1)(a) imposes two separate conditions: the landlord must be able to carry out the intended work without ending the tenant’s legal possession and without substantial interference with the business. The court may consider the physical result after completion and any further work needed to make the holding usable. Where the works destroy or indefinitely render the holding unusable, s. 31A will not prevent opposition to renewal.

The Tenant occupied a ground-floor shop under an “eggshell” underlease, excluding the building’s load-bearing structure but including the internal surfaces, floor, ceiling and shopfront. The Landlord served a notice under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and opposed a new tenancy under s. 30(1)(f), relying on works that would strip out or remove substantially all of the physical features enclosing the shop.

HH Judge Rich QC held that the statutory ground was established. He found that the second condition in s. 31A was satisfied but that the first was not, because the works could not reasonably be carried out without possession. The Tenant appealed, arguing that the demise contained no premises capable of demolition and that the court should consider only the duration and immediate disruption of the intended works.

The appeal was unanimously dismissed.

1. Meaning of premises. Under s. 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the relevant premises are the part of the holding capable of demolition and reconstruction. The inquiry is fact-sensitive. The court must identify the physical features included in the tenancy, determine which are capable of demolition or reconstruction, and decide whether the work to those features, taken as a whole, is properly so described. Load-bearing elements are not an essential prerequisite. The eggshell demise included physical boundaries and surfaces, including the floor, ceiling, tiling and roller shutter, which were capable of being demolished.
2. Section 31A. Section 31A(1)(a) contains two separate conditions. Given the access and facilities offered in the new tenancy, the landlord must be able to carry out the intended works both without ending the tenant’s legal right to possession and without interfering substantially in extent or time with the business use of the holding.
3. Physical effect of the works. The first condition is not confined to the period or immediate programme of the landlord’s works. The court may consider their physical result and the further work required before the tenant could occupy and trade from the holding. The court must consider the landlord’s genuine intended works, not alternative works achieving the same general objective.
4. Application. The proposed works would remove the eggshell and leave the shop unusable without substantial reinstatement, including a floor at the existing level. The terms of the new tenancy, considered under ss. 32 and 35, could not realistically permit reinstatement inconsistent with the Tenant’s agreement to the works or with the current lease. The Landlord therefore could not reasonably carry out the intended works without obtaining possession. The appeal was dismissed without remittal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The court dismissed the appeal: [2002] EWCA Civ 621.
• Central London County Court — HH Judge Rich QC held that the landlord had established opposition under s. 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and that the tenant could not rely on s. 31A.