This article considers the High Court's clarification in Pridewell Properties (London) Ltd v Spirit Pub Company (Managed) Ltd [2026] as to how landlords can establish redevelopment ground (f) under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the "1954 Act").
Ground (f)
Unless specifically excluded, the 1954 Act confers automatic security of tenure on business tenants, including the right to apply for a new lease on contractual expiry. A landlord may oppose renewal only by establishing one of the statutory grounds of opposition set out in section 30(1) of the 1954 Act. Ground (f), which is the redevelopment ground, requires the landlord to demonstrate an intention to demolish or reconstruct the premises or carry out substantial works of construction "on the termination of the tenancy".
The facts
In Pridewell the court explores what a reasonable time for commencing redevelopment works should be and what the reference to "on termination of the tenancy" in ground (f) of the 1954 Act actually means. The decision is relevant to all landlords with redevelopment ambitions.
The landlord (Pridewell Properties (London) Limited) sought possession of its public house from its tenant (Spirit Pub Company (Managed) Ltd) relying on ground (f) of section 30(1) of the 1954 Act, in order to construct three mews houses in the pub garden and convert the existing building into a ground-floor pub with six flats above. The tenant opposed this and applied for a new tenancy.
Critically, the landlord had not obtained planning permission in relation to the proposed redevelopment by the date of trial and had not submitted a planning application. This was because the landlord needed to carry out acoustic surveys and intrusive structural investigations and these steps could not be taken without access to the premises, which the tenant had refused. Expert evidence established that works could not commence until 10 to 14 months after the landlord had obtained possession.
The decision
In this High Court appeal, Mr Justice Fancourt held that the trial judge had applied the wrong test. Rather than asking whether the landlord genuinely intended to carry out the works on termination of the current tenancy (ie within a reasonable time after that termination), the judge had asked whether the anticipated delay in starting works was reasonable on the evidence in this case which is a materially different threshold.
Fancourt J reviewed previous authorities on what was considered to be a reasonable time to start work. The Court of Appeal in Reohorn v Barry Corporation [1956] confirmed that, whilst contractors need not be on site the day after possession, works must begin "not at any long delayed time, but on the termination of the tenancy."
Subsequent authorities have decided that an inability to carry out work within a few months of the possession date was not "on the termination of the current tenancy" but that a delay of a month or so was within the statutory tolerance and that what would be a reasonable time to start work was a question of fact in each case.
The statutory tolerance is likely to accommodate time for recovering and clearing the property, getting contractors on site and taking other preliminary steps before work actually commences. It does not extend to cases where the landlord must achieve something further which is uncertain and it may take a matter of months before works can commence.
Fancourt J held that the fact that the delay was beyond the landlord's control, which was caused by the tenant's refusal of access, was irrelevant. On the facts of the Pridewell case, a planning application would not be submitted until six to seven months after the possession date, with works commencing 10 to 14 months after the possession date. As a result, the judge concluded that the landlord did not have an intention to carry out works "on termination of the tenancy" and ground (f) was not made out.
Key Implications
Pridewell is a significant decision for landlords with redevelopment plans. It confirms that:
- A short mobilisation period after recovering possession is likely to be acceptable, but a substantial further period of uncertain duration is not; and
- Ground (f) will not be satisfied merely because a delay in starting works is understandable or inevitable.
In order to give themselves the best chances of successfully relying on ground (f) landlords should ensure that, by the date of trial, planning and title issues have been resolved as far as possible, and funding is in place so that works can begin promptly once possession has been obtained. Where this cannot be demonstrated, consideration should be given to granting a new lease instead but with a shorter term and/or a redevelopment break.
