Home Information Cases Pumperninks of Piccadilly Ltd v Land Securities PLC (2002)

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Pumperninks of Piccadilly Ltd v Land Securities PLC (2002)

Summary

A landlord's proposed works amounted to a demolition or reconstruction of an "eggshell" premises and, therefore, satisfied the grounds for opposing a new tenancy under s.30(1)(f) Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

Facts

Appeal by a tenant ('T') of ground floor shop premises let by the respondent landlords ('L'), from a decision of the county court refusing T's application for a new tenancy under Part II Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The question before the court, which had been answered in favour of L by the county court, was whether L had proved its ground of opposition to a new tenancy under s.30(1)(f) of the Act, having regard also to s.31A. The demised premises were in the nature of an "eggshell", being the interior skin of the shop, excluding load-bearing parts. L had proposed to strip out all ducts and services within the shop, remove part of a dividing wall and replace the load-bearing floor with a lower one to avoid a step up, thereby removing support for the eggshell above the floor and also removing the interior skin. L argued that this was an intention to demolish or reconstruct the premises comprising T's holding and was part of a substantial programme of works. T argued that the proposed works amounted to glorified redecoration and that L should, therefore, not be able to take possession of the premises. For a new lease to be granted, it would have been necessary for the demised premises to be given support from other parts of the building. The judge had found that L had satisfied the ground under s.30(1)(f) of the Act and that T was not entitled to rely on s.31A. T argued that the judge had erred in law in so deciding. The parties agreed, however, that it was not possible for the works to be carried out in reliance on rights reserved to L under the lease.

Held

(1) The judge had been correct to find that the condition in s.31A was not satisfied. L could not reasonably carry out the works without obtaining possession. (2) The eggshell, containing no structural element, was a premises capable of demolition or reconstruction on the ordinary meaning of those words, for the purposes of s.30(1)(f) of the Act.

Appeal dismissed.

Court of Appeal
Simon Brown LJ, Chadwick LJ, Charles J
Judgment date
10 May 2002
References

LTL 10/5/2002 : [2002] Ch 332 : [2002] 3 WLR 898 : [2002] 3 All ER 609 : [2003] 1 P & CR 14 : [2002] L & TR 37 : [2002] 2 EGLR 147 : [2002] 21 EG 142 (CS) : (2002) 99(24) LSG 36 : (2002) 146 SJLB 134 : [2002] NPC 66 : [2002] 2 P & CR DG16 : Times, May 30, 2002 : [2002] EWCA Civ 621

Practice areas