Skip to main content

News story

October 24, 2019

Scheme of works: true intentions

The Supreme Court rules on the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954

A landlord intending to redevelop, demolish or carry out a substantial scheme of works can no longer rely on the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 (the LTA) to defeat a tenant’s application for a new lease.

In the case of S Frances Limited v The Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd, the Supreme Court held that under the LTA, a landlord’s intention behind a scheme of works must be independent of the tenant’s claim for a new lease.

This decision marks a significant departure from previous case law. The court can now investigate any scheme of works proposed by a landlord and consider their nature and intention, before coming to a decision on the grant of a new lease to an existing tenant.

Except where the LTA has been specifically excluded from a lease, a business tenant who occupies premises for business purposes is entitled to a new lease at the end of the term under the LTA. Unless a landlord can prove that one or more of the LTA’s specific grounds for opposing the grant of a new lease applies.

Section 30(1)(f) of the LTA is known as the “redevelopment ground” and requires that a landlord intends to demolish, reconstruct or carry out a substantial construction scheme of works on the premises, which they could not reasonably do without obtaining possession.

Previously a landlord’s motive was irrelevant. However, in the Frances case, it was shown that the landlord had devised a scheme of works, which met the statutory criteria under the LTA, but that it intended to recover possession of the premises without a commercial benefit and that it may not carry out those works.

The Supreme Court held that to satisfy the criteria, a landlord’s intention must exist independently of the tenant’s claim for a new lease and must not be conditional upon whether the tenant wishes to remain at the premises. It applied the test of whether the landlord would still do the same scheme of works if the tenant left voluntarily.

Tenants will be pleased with this decision, as it has gone some way to ensuring that the spirit of the LTA has been maintained. Consequently, tenants can analyse their landlord’s intentions and schemes of work in greater depth and attempt to challenge the scheme of works’ necessity rather than just vacating the premises.

Each side’s negotiating position is more important than ever. The decision is likely to result in more landlord’s considering the proposed terms of a new lease with a potential redevelopment break, rather than having to devise a scheme of works to obtain possession, where they risk having to prove their intentions, or in cases where only part of the premises is required, to complete the scheme of works.

Our experienced property litigation team can advise landlords and tenants on the provisions and consequences of the LTA. Call property litigation lawyer Laura St- Gallay today.

Note: This article is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Can you make a WhatsApp will?
    Key legal requirements and future outlook.


    Read more
  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more
  • Supreme court ruling on referees’ employment status
    In PGMOL v HMRC, the Supreme Court considered whether professional referees were self-employed. The case has the potential for far-reaching implications across the employment world.


    Read more
  • Business First Magazine
    Read our expert insights on key workplace and corporate issues.


    Read more
  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more

What they say...

  • Ian, April 2025
    “Martin and his team at Barker Gillette acted for us in our purchase and sale of property. The chain was lengthy and elements of the work became complex. Martin was tenacious and resolved to answer our queries as they arose. He handled all aspe

  • Henry, April 2025
    “We have purchased flats before with 2 different solicitors who were unable to help us this time. Martin came highly recommended and are we glad. He was very professional in every way: knowledgeable, approachable, he has a friendly manner, very

  • Megan Purcell-Jones, April 2025
    “Charlotte was extremely diligent and thorough. She talked us through the process of making our wills and listened to and understood our needs and the complexities involved. Extremely patient and very clear.”

  • Hena, April 2025
    “Great experience, Patrick was very clear and gave time to explain the legal processes. Friendly and professional communication made me feel comfortable asking questions, received great legal advice.”

  • Michael Constable, April 2025
    “I wanted to revise my will and appoint RIAA Barker Gillette as my Executor and Trustees. This was handled very efficiently and professionally. It helped that I had agreed a fixed fee in advance.” Review left for: Herman Cheung

Read more
Send this to a friend