Gold v Brighton Corporation
[1956] 1 WLR 1291 · Court of Appeal · 1956
The question
Can the new lease contain a user restriction that would cut out a substantial part of the tenant's existing trade?
What was held
Not without good reason. The court should not impose terms that deprive the tenant of a substantial part of the business actually carried on.
For a landlord
If you want a tighter user clause on renewal, be ready to justify it and to compensate through the rent.
For a tenant
Identify precisely what trade you carry on and what a narrowed user clause would cost you — that is the O'May argument in practice.
The provisions this turns on
Apply it to your matter
Read alongside this
- B&M Retail Ltd v HSBC Bank Pension Trust (UK) Ltd[2023] EWHC 2495 (Ch)
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Medley Assets LtdUnreported, County Court at Central London, 21 March 2024 (H00MK414)
- W (No.3) GP (Nominee A) Ltd & anor v JD Sports Fashion plcNottingham County Court, 22 October 2021 (E00DE178)
- Dukeminster Ltd v West End Investments (Cowell Group) LtdCounty Court, 2018 (reported in practitioner briefings)
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.