Platia v Thermatic Building Services Ltd.

For the redevelopment ground under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, a landlord need not be ready to start works with machinery in place at the exact moment the tenancy expires. Section 30(1)(f) requires credible evidence of a sufficient intention to carry out substantial works, the practical ability to carry them out, the need for possession, and completion within a reasonable time. The provision should not receive an impracticable or overtechnical construction. A court may investigate whether a judgment was obtained by perjured evidence, since ignoring established perjury would undermine the administration of justice. Permission to appeal was nevertheless refused where the central factual conclusion remained reasonable and there was insufficient evidence of dishonesty.

The applicant tenant sought permission to appeal from an order made by Mr Recorder Philip Sapsford QC on 7 June 2004. The Recorder refused a new tenancy of premises at 34 Broadway Market under paragraph (f) of section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, finding that the landlords intended to carry out sufficiently substantial works which could not be undertaken without possession.

The proposed appeal concerned conservation area consent. The landlords had planning permission, but the consent application had not been validly made at the hearing and was later renewed. The applicant argued that the landlords could not be ready to undertake the works when the tenancy ended and that the Recorder had been misled by evidence describing the consent application as delayed in administration. Consent was granted on 26 October 2004. The central issues were the proper construction of section 30(1)(f) and whether the alleged evidential error or possible perjury justified permission to appeal.

Applications refused. Permission to appeal was refused.

1. Under paragraph (f) of section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the landlord bears the burden of establishing by credible evidence a sufficient intention to carry out the proposed works, that they are sufficiently substantial, that they can be carried out on the balance of probabilities, and that they will be carried out within a reasonable time.
2. The section does not require the landlord to be ready in every respect to begin work at the precise moment the tenancy expires. That would be an impracticable and overtechnical construction. The landlords could enter when the tenancy ended and begin appropriate preparatory work in anticipation of conservation area consent being granted shortly afterwards, while taking care over the work undertaken before consent.
3. The reference in section 64 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to the tenancy ending on or about 21 September 2004 did not alter that conclusion. The absence of consent at that date did not prevent the landlords from being sufficiently ready for the purposes of section 30(1)(f).
4. The Recorder’s conclusion that consent would probably be granted within a few months was reasonable. The later grant of consent on 26 October 2004 confirmed that assessment.
5. If a judgment were obtained by perjured evidence, it would be contrary to the proper administration of justice for an appellate court simply to ignore the issue. Here, however, the central conclusion about the likely grant of consent was correct or at least reasonable, and the evidence did not begin to establish perjury. The alleged statement that the application was held up in administration could have resulted from an ambiguity, misunderstanding, or honest mistake.

Applications for permission to appeal were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal refused from the order of Mr Recorder Philip Sapsford QC dated 7 June 2004.
• Central London County Court: refused the tenant a new tenancy under paragraph (f) of section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.