Cornerstone
s.23(1)
Bagettes Ltd v GP Estates Co Ltd
[1956] Ch 290 · Court of Appeal · 1956
The question
Is a tenancy protected where the business use is only incidental to a wider, largely non-business letting?
What was held
No. Part II requires occupation for the purposes of a business; a merely incidental business element is not enough.
For a landlord
Analyse the real purpose of the occupation, particularly in mixed residential and commercial buildings.
For a tenant
Make the business purpose real and documented — trading records, rates, signage, staff — not incidental.
The provisions this turns on
Read alongside this
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Medley Assets LtdUnreported, County Court at Central London, 21 March 2024 (H00MK414)
- Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea v Mellcraft Ltd[2024] EWHC 539 (Ch)
- Barclays Wealth Trustees (Jersey) Ltd v Erimus Housing Ltd[2014] EWCA Civ 303
- Lee-Verhulst (Investments) Ltd v Harwood Trust[1973] QB 204
Sponsored by McGarrigle & Co
Need professional assistance with your lease?
Case summary for general guidance only, not legal advice. Judgments turn on their own facts and later decisions may qualify them — check the primary transcript before relying on any point in correspondence or proceedings.