Woww Ltd & Ors v Gani & Anor

An oral lease for a term exceeding three years is void as a legal estate and cannot support a claim to a ten-year lease. However, a periodic tenancy may be inferred from consent to occupation, exclusive possession and payment and acceptance of rent assessed by reference to a period. Where the evidence concerning the parties’ arrangements, later tenancies at will, authority and termination is materially conflicting, the issues should ordinarily be resolved at trial rather than summarily. A business periodic tenancy may attract the security of tenure provisions in Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Pending trial, an injunction may preserve the status quo where there is a serious question to be tried and damages may be inadequate.

The claimants occupied commercial premises owned by the defendants. They alleged that Wearwell London Limited held either a ten-year oral lease or, alternatively, a periodic tenancy arising from occupation and payment of rent. They claimed protection under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

The defendants sought to strike out the claim or obtain summary judgment. They relied on the alleged invalidity of the oral lease, written tenancies at will, an attempted termination by Mr Islam, disputed authority, service defects and conflicts concerning actual business use. The claimants sought permission to amend and continuation of interim injunctive relief.

1. Disposition. The claimants were permitted to amend their case to plead a periodic tenancy. The defendants’ applications to strike out and for summary judgment were refused. The claimants’ entitlement to an injunction was considered on an interim basis, with the matter to proceed to trial in the County Court after disclosure and exchange of evidence.
2. Under section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a lease for a term exceeding three years must be made by deed. An oral ten-year lease is void as a legal estate. The claim based on that alleged lease therefore could not succeed and was liable to be struck out.
3. A periodic tenancy may arise by inference where a person occupies land with the owner’s consent and rent assessed on a periodic basis is paid and accepted. The evidence of long occupation, exclusive possession, periodic rent payments and quarterly demands provided an arguable basis for such a tenancy.
4. The alleged tenancies at will did not conclusively establish the legal relationship. Their authenticity, purpose, effect on any earlier tenancy, and whether they replaced or merely presented a different arrangement for rating purposes required disclosure and cross-examination. Mr Islam’s authority to bind or surrender rights on behalf of Wearwell was also arguable.
5. A periodic tenancy used for business purposes may fall within Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. There was no sufficient basis at this stage for concluding that any protection had been excluded or lost.
6. For summary judgment, the court considered whether the claim had no real prospect of success or was fanciful. The evidential conflicts could not fairly be resolved without conducting a mini-trial. The claim therefore raised a serious question to be tried.
7. Applying the staged approach in American Cyanamid, preservation of the status quo favoured interim protection. The proposed injunction was subject to payment of arrears and future rent, appropriate user terms, security and a cross-undertaking in damages. The judgment did not determine the ultimate merits.

The proceedings were first issued in the County Court on 2 November 2017 and were later transferred to the High Court. Earlier interim injunctions were granted or continued by Warren J, Henry Carr J and Mr Justice Hildyard. The matter was directed to return to the County Court for trial with related proceedings concerning ownership of Wearwell.