Wessex Reserve Forces v White & Anor

Under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, a landlord opposing a tenant’s application for a new tenancy on the ground of demolition must establish a genuine intention to demolish premises that will exist when the current tenancy ends. The intention is tested on the hypothesis that no new tenancy is granted. Where the tenant will remove the relevant buildings, the landlord cannot rely on an intention to demolish them. The landlord must also show that the work cannot reasonably be carried out without possession, subject to section 31A. If no statutory ground of opposition is established, the court must order a new tenancy and has no residual discretion to refuse it.

The Wessex Reserve Forces and Cadets Association occupied land and buildings under a 1985 lease for Air Training Corps activities. The tenancy was protected by Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and continued after its contractual expiry.

The landlords served a section 25 notice relying solely on section 30(1)(f), asserting an intention to demolish the buildings and that demolition could not reasonably be carried out without possession. The tenant applied for a new tenancy. Mr Michael Harvey QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, held that the ground was not established. The appeal concerned whether the landlords could rely on demolition of buildings which the tenant would remove, and whether possession was necessary to demolish the remaining stone stall.

1. Appeal dismissed. The landlords failed to establish the only ground on which they opposed the new tenancy, namely section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
2. The statutory ground contains three alternative limbs: demolition of the premises comprised in the holding; reconstruction of a substantial part of those premises; or substantial work of construction on the holding or part of it. In each case the landlord must also establish that the intended work could not reasonably be carried out without obtaining possession.
3. The landlord’s intention must be tested on the hypothesis that the current tenancy ends without a new tenancy being granted. An intention to demolish requires premises capable of being demolished at that point. Buildings which the tenant will remove under the existing lease, or which it has a sufficient incentive to remove and reuse elsewhere, will not be available for demolition by the landlord.
4. As to the stone stall, it was unnecessary to decide whether the lease required its removal. The tenant was willing to remove it, and the landlords could obtain access from the road. In any event, the tenant was willing to accept lease terms giving the landlords the access and facilities required for demolition, engaging section 31A.
5. Sections 29 and 31 leave no discretion: if a statutory ground is established, the court must refuse a new tenancy; if no ground is established, the court must order one. The terms are then determined under sections 32 to 35, with regard to the current tenancy and all relevant circumstances, including rights enjoyed in connection with the holding. The tenant may choose not to take the tenancy on the terms ordered, but that choice does not make the statutory right valueless.

The order was upheld. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s appeal costs, excluding the respondent’s notice costs, which were set off against the appeal costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2005] EWCA Civ 1744 — appeal dismissed; the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s appeal costs, subject to the stated set-off.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Order dated 20 May 2005 by Mr Michael Harvey QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge — the landlords had not established the section 30(1)(f) ground of opposition, and the proceedings were to continue to the next stage.