The decisions that are actually deciding renewals right now.

The questionCould the landlord (part of the Electric Group) defeat the renewal claim of Sheffield's Leadmill venue on the basis that it intended to run a live music business from the premises itself?

HeldYes. The landlord established a firm and settled intention to occupy for its own business, with a reasonable prospect of implementing it. Goodwill built up by a much-loved tenant does not answer ground (g), and the tenant's arguments that the plan was a device failed on the evidence.

The questionIs a landlord's intention to carry out works genuine where the scheme exists only to remove the tenant?

HeldNo. The intention must be unconditional — the landlord must intend to do the works whether or not the tenant leaves. A contrived scheme the landlord would abandon if the tenant walked away fails ground (f).

The questionWhere a tenant holds over after a contracted-out lease expires while terms are negotiated, is that a periodic tenancy or a tenancy at will?

HeldA tenancy at will, on these facts. Where both parties expect to sign a new lease and negotiations are live, the court will not readily infer an implied periodic tenancy from continued occupation and payment of rent.

The questionCan a landlord rely on ground (g) where the business it intends to run is essentially the same business the tenant is running from the premises?

HeldYes. Ground (g) asks whether the landlord intends to occupy for its own business. It is no answer that the landlord will simply take over the same trade, nor that the tenant's business will be destroyed.

The questionIs an intention to occupy genuine where the landlord also wants to sell the property?

HeldNo, not on these facts. An intention to occupy must be more than a conditional or temporary step towards a sale; a landlord who would sell if the right offer came along does not hold a firm and settled intention to occupy.

The questionDoes a notice fail because of a mistake in it, or is it read as a reasonable recipient would understand it?

HeldNotices are construed objectively: what would a reasonable recipient, with knowledge of the context, understand the notice to mean? An obvious slip that misleads nobody does not destroy the notice — though a statutory notice must still do what the statute requires.

The questionOn a renewal, can the landlord use the new lease to change the deal — here, converting a clear lease into a full service-charge recovery from the tenant?

HeldNo, not without justification. The party proposing a change to the terms of the existing tenancy carries the burden of showing it is fair and reasonable, having regard to the terms of the current lease and all the circumstances. A price adjustment in the rent does not automatically make a changed term reasonable.

The questionCan a tenant serve a section 26 request after the landlord has already served a valid section 25 notice?

HeldNo. The two routes are mutually exclusive; once a valid s.25 notice is given, a s.26 request cannot be made.

The questionAre the statutory time limits for applying to court absolute, or can a landlord lose the right to rely on them?

HeldThe limits exist for the landlord's benefit, so a landlord can waive them by election — for example by treating a premature or late claim as properly constituted and litigating on the merits.

The questionAt what date must the landlord prove its intention to redevelop or occupy — when the notice was served, or at trial?

HeldAt the hearing. The landlord must hold the requisite intention at the date of the hearing, so intention formed after the s.25 notice still counts.

The questionCan the new lease contain a user restriction that would cut out a substantial part of the tenant's existing trade?

HeldNot without good reason. The court should not impose terms that deprive the tenant of a substantial part of the business actually carried on.

The questionIs a tenancy protected where the business use is only incidental to a wider, largely non-business letting?

HeldNo. Part II requires occupation for the purposes of a business; a merely incidental business element is not enough.

The questionWhen a company holds the lease but a director actually uses the premises, is the tenancy occupied 'by the tenant' for business purposes at all?

HeldThe court examined the corporate-versus-personal occupation question under s.23 and the extent of occupation needed on the landlord's side for ground (g), including the five-year qualifying condition in s.30(2).

The questionHow should the court approach the discretionary grounds of opposition — breach of repair, rent arrears and other substantial breaches — and at what date?

HeldThe Court of Appeal confirmed the court looks at the position at the hearing, in the round: the state of the holding, the tenant's conduct over the whole term, and whether it would be fair to turn the tenant out given all the circumstances.

The questionWhere a landlord cannot make out ground (f) at trial but does have genuine future redevelopment plans, can the new lease still contain a redevelopment break clause?

HeldYes. The court may impose a rolling redevelopment break where that strikes a fair balance between the tenant's security and the landlord's plans.

The questionDoes a landlord need funding fully in place to hold a fixed and settled intention to redevelop?

HeldNot unconditionally, but the funding route must be realistic. Conditionality is not automatically fatal — it goes into the balance when the court asks whether the scheme has a reasonable prospect of being carried out.

The questionDoes a slip in the contracting-out machinery — the warning notice and the tenant's declaration — revive security of tenure?

HeldNot on these facts. The Court of Appeal upheld the exclusions, taking a practical view of the statutory declaration process where the tenant plainly understood what it was giving up.

The questionOn the renewal of a JD Sports unit in the Derbion centre in Derby, could the landlord insist that the new lease carry a turnover rent — as the expiring lease had — instead of a conventional fixed open market rent?

HeldNo. The court refused to impose a turnover rent. Section 34 requires the court to determine the rent at which the holding might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market, and the landlord had not shown that a turnover model was what the market would produce for this unit or that it was fair to force the tenant into it. A fixed rent was determined instead, and the O'May burden of justifying a change of terms was not discharged.

The questionHow should the court fix the rent and other terms of the new tenancy where the market has moved between notice and trial?

HeldBy applying the statutory assumptions and disregards to a hypothetical letting at the valuation date, on comparable evidence — not by reference to the parties' expectations when the notice was served.

The questionHow firm must a landlord's intention to occupy be before ground (g) succeeds, and can the tenant reopen the trial judge's findings on appeal?

HeldThe Court of Appeal declined to disturb the trial judge's assessment of the landlord's intention. Ground (g) turns on the judge's evaluation of the evidence at the date of hearing, and an appellate court will not re-run that fact-finding exercise.

The questionDoes a tenant that has sub-let and no longer trades from the premises keep its renewal rights?

HeldNo. Protection depends on the tenant's own occupation for business purposes; once that ends, the tenancy falls outside Part II.

The questionDoes a lengthy closure for reinstatement after a fire break business occupation?

HeldNo, where the tenant retains the intention to return and the thread of continuity is unbroken; physical absence alone is not decisive.

The questionWhat happens where a section 25 notice is given by a party who is not the competent landlord?

HeldIt is ineffective. Only the competent landlord for the time being can operate s.25, so identity must be established at the date of service.

The questionIs a tenant who lets rooms to residential occupiers, but supplies substantial services, still in business occupation of the whole?

HeldYes on these facts. Where the services supplied and the control retained are substantial, the tenant occupies the whole for the purposes of its business.

The questionIs an unexercised contractual option to renew an 'agreement for a future tenancy' under s.28, so that Part II protection falls away?

HeldNo. An option that has not been exercised is not a s.28 agreement. Protection continues unless the contracting-out formalities were properly completed.

The questionCould a landlord oppose a pub tenant's renewal on ground (f) where it planned to build mews houses in the beer garden and convert upper parts to residential — and did it matter that the plan was accelerated to defeat the renewal?

HeldNo. The works were substantial enough and the intention genuine, firm and settled, but the ground failed on objective intention: the landlord had not shown a real prospect of financing the development, offering no evidence of the directors' means or willingness to give personal guarantees. The court also declined to extend the Franses conditionality principle to the timing of works — accelerating the plan to meet ground (f) was not fatal where the landlord intended to build regardless — and accepted 14 months as a reasonable time to commence works on the facts.

The questionCan a tenant narrow the premises it actually occupies so that the landlord's redevelopment scheme no longer relates to the holding?

HeldYes. The holding is defined by what the tenant occupies at the date of the hearing, and the landlord's scheme was not shown to require possession of that reduced area.

The questionHow should renewal rent and interim rent be assessed where the comparable evidence is distorted by pandemic-era trading?

HeldConventional valuation principles still apply. Comparables are weighted on the evidence rather than by a blanket pandemic discount.

The questionOn an unopposed renewal, could the tenant have a pandemic rent-suspension clause imposed on the landlord under s.35?

HeldNo. The court refused to write in a 50% rent suspension triggered by lockdown. It was not fair and reasonable to shift that risk onto the landlord without market evidence that such terms were being agreed.

The questionWhere both sides accept some form of pandemic clause, what should it say — and how much weight do pandemic-era comparables carry when fixing rent?

HeldThe clause went in, because its principle was agreed and only the wording was in issue. The court also addressed how far pandemic-affected transactional evidence can be relied on when setting the s.34 rent.

The questionAfter S Franses, what evidence does a landlord actually need to prove a fixed and settled intention to demolish and reconstruct?

HeldThe landlord made out ground (f). The court set out the practical evidential picture it expected — board authorisation, funding route, planning progress and a scheme that genuinely needs vacant possession.

The questionDoes a misdescription in a s.25 notice invalidate it, and how should the court fix the terms of the renewal?

HeldThe notice was upheld — a reasonable recipient understood what was meant — and the court gave guidance on setting term length and modernised terms.

The questionDoes occupation under an agreement for lease, before any lease is granted, attract Part II protection?

HeldNot of itself. Protection attaches to a tenancy; possession under an uncompleted agreement may give no protected interest.