Kent v Guest

Under section 30(1) of the Land and Tenant Act 1954, the court first decides whether the relevant statutory ground is established. Breaches under section 30(1)(a) and (c) must be substantial; persistence is required under section 30(1)(b). The court then decides whether, in light of the established breaches and any other relevant reason under section 30(1)(c), the tenant ought not to receive a new tenancy. That assessment is a value judgment focused on whether it would be fair to compel the landlord to re-enter legal relations with the tenant. The court may consider the tenant’s past performance and likely future conduct. An appellate court will not interfere unless the lower court erred in principle, considered irrelevant matters, omitted material matters, or reached an impermissible conclusion.

This was a rolled-up application for permission to appeal, with the appeal to follow if permission was granted, from the County Court at Leeds. The Recorder had held that the landlord validly terminated the tenant’s business tenancy, that the statutory grounds opposing a new tenancy were established, and that the tenant should not receive a new tenancy.

The tenant challenged the Recorder’s treatment of alleged breaches concerning repair, alterations, sharing occupation, burning waste, and insurance. He also argued that the statutory discretion had to be exercised separately under section 30(1)(a) and section 30(1)(c), and raised a construction issue concerning a house built on the holding.

Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

1. Appellate approach. The relevant question was whether the Recorder was wrong in law, fact, principle, or the exercise of judgment. The court would not readily second-guess factual findings based on witness credibility. Reasons could have been expressed more precisely, but the appellate court approached the judgment on the basis that the Recorder understood his function and the matters requiring consideration: Re C (a child) [2013] 1 WLR 3720 (CA) and Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360 (HL).
2. Section 30(1). The statutory scheme involves two stages. The landlord must establish the relevant ground, including a substantial breach under section 30(1)(a) or (c), or persistent delay under section 30(1)(b). The court then asks whether the tenant ought not to be granted a new tenancy. The court did not need to decide whether that second-stage assessment must always be compartmentalised by subsection. Even on that assumption, the Recorder’s decision was correct.
3. Grounds and discretion. The repair and maintenance breaches were substantial and had occurred or materially worsened during the Lease. The unauthorised alterations, prohibited turf business and shared occupation, deliberate waste burning, and failure to insure were also substantial breaches. The later remedying of the insurance breach did not remove its significance; future reliability was relevant to the discretionary assessment.
4. Under section 30(1)(a), the likely continued deterioration of the Property was sufficient reason to refuse a new tenancy. Under section 30(1)(c), the tenant’s past conduct, dishonesty, and prospective shared occupation with the Newmarket stables supported the conclusion that it would be unfair to compel the landlord to re-enter legal relations with him. The Recorder’s value judgment was neither wrong nor outside the permissible range.
5. The proposed construction of the Lease concerning the new house was unnecessary to decide and was left unresolved. The appeal was dismissed, with costs and consequential matters reserved.

• High Court (Chancery Division): On appeal from the County Court at Leeds, permission was granted but the appeal was dismissed.
• County Court at Leeds: The Recorder held that the business tenancy had been validly terminated, refused a new tenancy, and ordered vacant possession. The judgment date and citation of that decision were not stated in the judgment.