The Leadmill Ltd –v– MVL Properties (2017) Ltd – CA-2025-000565
Permission to appeal application refused
On 19 February 2025, Mr Justice Norris gave judgment in the above case, concerning the interaction of ground (g) of the 1954 Act and the European Convention of Human Rights, in which Wayne Clark KC and Daniel Black acted successfully for MVL.
The tenant had argued that that (i) s.30(1)(g) must be read as not applying to a case where the landlord intends to carry on “essentially the same business” (namely a music and entertainment venue) as that which the tenant has been carrying on at the premises; since, (ii) that would have the result of appropriating for himself the tenant’s goodwill that had become attached to the premises (which it called “the adherent goodwill”); (iii) in contravention of the tenant’s right to property under article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The decision is also authority for the propositions that the landlord’s subjective intention can be satisfied by an undertaking to occupy land to carry on the business, and the commencement of fitting out is sufficient for business occupation.
Yesterday, by an order of Lewison LJ, the Leadmill’s application for permission to appeal was rejected (without an oral hearing). As such, the leading authority on ground (g) and its interaction with the ECHR remains the decision of Norris J, which you can find summarised here.
Back to news listing
