Intention and the 1954 Act
If a landlord fails to establish the subjective element of “intention” under s.30(1) (g) that does not imply that he is dishonest. It is sufficient that the first instance judge finds that there was no firm and settled intention. See Macey v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd  EWHC 2847, Ch, where Wayne Clark acted for the successful tenant in opposing the landlord’s claim for termination unders.30(1)(g) of the 1954 Act.
The judgment can be found here.
Back to news listing