44 Wellfit Street Ltd v GMR Services Ltd

A party claiming a right to occupy land under a disputed lease must prove the lease’s authenticity where possession is claimed by the registered proprietor. A prior licence expires according to its terms and does not, without more, create a new right of occupation. The court may assess the authenticity of handwriting by comparing disputed writing with writing proved to be genuine, including in civil proceedings under Criminal Procedure Act 1865, s.8. On the evidence, the alleged lease, option and supporting documents were false, so possession was ordered and the occupier’s counterclaim dismissed.

The claimant was the registered proprietor of industrial land used as a scrap yard. It had acquired the land in July 2015 subject to a 12-month licence to occupy, which excluded statutory business-tenancy protection. The defendant claimed occupation under a five-year lease and an associated option to purchase, both allegedly executed in December 2015.

The claimant contended that the lease and option were forgeries, or alternatively that the lease was a sham. The defendant’s case depended on disputed copies, altered emails and other documents. The central issues were whether the alleged lease was authentic and, if not, whether the defendant had any continuing right to possession.

1. Possession and burden of proof. The claimant’s licence permitted occupation for up to 12 months and had expired. No new right to occupy arose on its expiry. The defendant therefore had to establish the authenticity and validity of the alleged lease; absent that proof, the claimant was entitled to possession.
2. Assessment of the evidence. The defendant’s witnesses were unreliable. The disputed emails had been tampered with and the defendant’s versions were false. The alleged lease and option contained commercially extraordinary terms, including a nominal rent, a long potential term, a substantially under-value purchase option and very substantial termination payments. The surrounding transaction documents instead showed a straightforward sale followed by a temporary licence.
3. Handwriting evidence. A witness familiar with a person’s signature may give recognition evidence that disputed writing is unlike that person’s usual signature. Under s.8 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865, the court may also compare disputed writing with writing proved genuine. The principle that s.8 applies in civil proceedings, discussed in Lockheed-Arabia v Owen [1993] 3 W.L.R. 468, was applicable. The uniform “JP” initials on the alleged documents differed materially from genuine examples of the signatory’s initials.
4. The claimant had proved its entitlement to possession. It was unnecessary to determine the alternative case that the lease was a sham. An order for possession was made and the defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed.

This was a first-instance possession claim in the High Court. The claimant commenced proceedings on 4 April 2017 after retaking possession of the land and the defendant immediately re-entering.