Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
Opposing lease renewal under ground (f): the relevance of funding
A recent High Court decision is an important reminder of the hurdles that must be overcome when opposing lease renewals on the ground of redevelopment. Georgina Muskett of Charles Russell Speechlys LLP examines the evidential burden necessary to satisfy the court.
The case of Pridewell v Spirit Pub Company [2026] was unusual in that the landlord did not yet have planning permission (and had not applied for planning). Ultimately, the landlord’s case fell on the issue of evidencing funding; the judge commented, but did not decide the case on the fact that there was a timing issue in showing that the landlord intended to carry out its plans on the termination of the tenancy.
Pridewell v Spirit Pub Company
The property in question was a pub in South Woodford, comprising a ground-floor pub, upper-floor accommodation, and a large beer garden. The tenant had occupied the property since 2007 and the landlord, Pridewell, obtained the freehold in 2014 to explore the site's development potential. The landlord’s proposed scheme involved building three mews houses in the beer garden and converting the existing building into a smaller pub on the ground floor with six flats above.
The legal test under ground (f)
The test under section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises and that they could not reasonably do so without obtaining possession. The landlord is required to demonstrate a “reasonable prospect” of being able to carry out the works. This does not require the landlord to prove this on the balance of probabilities but only that there is a real chance, something more than a speculative or fanciful possibility. There are two strands to this test:
a subjective test (the landlord genuinely wants to do the works), and
an objective test (the landlord has the practical means with which to actually implement those plans).
The evidential gap
The landlord in this case fell down on the objective test and the question of funding.
The trial judge found that there was a real prospect a lender would provide finance on the basis of the property as security. However, the bank had also indicated that they would require the directors/shareholders to give personal guarantees. The landlord adduced no evidence of their personal finances.
On appeal, the landlord argued that the question of guarantees was irrelevant and unnecessary for the court to consider. It was not necessary for the court to decide how funding would be raised as long as there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining it.
The appeal court rejected this on grounds that the initial judgment had to be read as a whole and the guarantee issue was an integral part of the overall funding assessment.
The key takeaway here is that landlords, must be prepared to prove that they have a reasonable prospect of obtaining funding for the proposed works.
Timing of the works: How long is too long?
The landlord had not applied for planning permission. This was partly because the landlord needed access to the property to carry out acoustic surveys and investigations and the tenant had refused access.
The established test allows only a ‘reasonably short’ period after the possession date for the landlord to start works. This means that the landlord intended to start works as soon as possible on termination of the tenancy, with just time to recover, secure, and clear the property and mobilise contractors.
The trial judge found that the works could not begin for 10 to 14 months after possession but, given the issues faced by the landlord, held this was a ‘reasonable time’. The appeal court held that the issue is not whether the length of the delay is ‘justified’ or ‘reasonable’ in itself, but whether, given such a delay, the landlord can be said to intend to carry out works ‘on the termination of the current tenancy’ as required under the legislation.
Where the landlord still needs to apply for planning permission, conduct surveys, and go through pre-application consultation after obtaining possession, it is unlikely that this will satisfy the test. While the appeal court found that this did not mean that the landlord should have already applied for or, better still, obtained planning permission before trial, it means that a landlord who has not done those things faces greater difficulties in establishing that their intention can be carried out in time.
Practical lessons
Pridewell demonstrates the high evidential burden on landlords to establish their ground (f) cases and have all of their ducks in a row before trial. This means that, practically speaking, ideally, planning permission should have been obtained, or at least applied for, by the date of trial. If a landlord is heading into trial with additional surveys and pre-application advice still outstanding, then this is unlikely to satisfy the timing test. If there are any other potential hurdles to redevelopment, such as restrictive covenants, the landlord should also address in its evidence how it plans to overcome these hurdles and the likely timing.
The appeal court noted that in circumstances like those in this case, there are alternative strategies available to a landlord such as exploring. a short-term lease with a redevelopment break clause or seeking terms in the new tenancy that include access rights for surveys, so that the landlord can be in a position to prove ground (f) at a later date.
For tenants the case is a reminder of the evidential burden which landlords must overcome and highlights some of the aspects of the landlord’s case which tenants will want to investigate and assess when considering their own position in response to a ground (f) redevelopment claim.
Case reference: Pridewell Properties (London) Ltd v Spirit Pub Co (Managed) London Ltd [2026] EWHC 953 (Ch)
Key points
Ground (f) requires both a genuine intention to redevelop and the practical means to do so.
Landlords must be able to show reasonable prospect of obtaining funding
A landlord that has not yet obtained planning permission, faces greater difficulty in proving an intention to redevelop
Georgina Muskett is a senior associate at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
