By the Streathers Litigation and Property Disputes Team
A recent High Court decision will be of considerable interest to landlords, tenants and professional advisers involved in business lease renewals under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
In Pridewell Properties (London) Ltd v Spirit Pub Co (Managed) London Ltd [2026] EWHC 953 (Ch), the High Court provided important guidance on one of the most frequently litigated aspects of Ground (f) opposition claims: namely, when redevelopment works must be intended to commence following the termination of a protected business tenancy.
The judgment reinforces that a landlord seeking to oppose lease renewal on redevelopment grounds must be able to demonstrate more than a genuine intention to undertake works. Timing remains critical.
Ground (f): A Brief Reminder
Ground (f) allows a landlord to oppose the grant of a new tenancy where it intends to demolish, reconstruct or carry out substantial works to the premises and cannot reasonably do so without obtaining possession.
Whilst the requirement for a genuine and settled intention to redevelop is well-established, disputes often arise where redevelopment proposals remain subject to funding, planning or practical obstacles.
One recurring question is how soon works must be capable of starting after the existing tenancy comes to an end.
The Facts
The case concerned an existing public house where the landlord sought possession in order to undertake a substantial redevelopment scheme involving:
- New residential accommodation on the upper floors of the building;
- Construction of residential mews houses within the existing beer garden;
- Significant alterations to the existing premises.
The court had to consider whether the landlord had a real prospect of:
- Securing development funding;
- Obtaining planning permission;
- Overcoming difficulties arising from restrictive covenants; and
- Commencing redevelopment works upon termination of the tenancy.
At first instance, the landlord succeeded on planning, restrictive covenants and timing, but failed on funding. As a result, Ground (f) was not made out.
Both parties appealed different aspects of the decision.
The Key Issue: How Long Is Too Long?
The most significant aspect of the High Court’s judgment concerned timing.
At trial, expert evidence established that the landlord would require approximately 10 to 14 months after obtaining possession before physical construction works could begin.
The delay arose because:
- No planning application had yet been submitted;
- Acoustic and structural investigations remained outstanding;
- The landlord lacked rights of access under the lease sufficient to undertake certain intrusive investigations while the tenant remained in occupation.
The trial judge considered that, although lengthy, there was a reasonable explanation for the delay and therefore the works could still be regarded as being intended “upon the termination of the tenancy”.
The High Court disagreed.
What Did the High Court Decide?
Fancourt J held that the trial judge had asked the wrong question.
The issue was not whether the delay itself was reasonable or capable of justification. Rather, the correct question was whether, given the anticipated delay, the landlord could genuinely be said to intend to carry out the works “on the termination of the current tenancy”.
This distinction is important.
The court emphasised that Ground (f) does not provide a broad discretion to accommodate redevelopment proposals that may become viable at some point in the future. The statutory test remains focused on the landlord’s intention to proceed with works at or shortly after the point possession is recovered.
Whilst courts have historically allowed a degree of practical flexibility, that flexibility remains limited.
Clarification of “Reasonable Time”
The judgment provides useful guidance on what may fall within the permitted period following possession.
Fancourt J accepted that landlords may require a short period to:
- Secure vacant premises;
- Clear and prepare the site;
- Mobilise contractors;
- Arrange logistics and preliminary works.
The length of any acceptable period will depend upon the scale and nature of the proposed works.
For example, a more extensive redevelopment project in a densely populated city-centre location may require a longer mobilisation period than relatively modest works to a smaller self-contained property.
However, the judgment makes clear that Ground (f) does not extend to situations where significant redevelopment hurdles remain unresolved.
Where a landlord still needs to:
- Apply for planning permission;
- Complete essential investigations;
- Resolve major development issues; or
- Satisfy important pre-development conditions,
it may struggle to demonstrate the necessary intention to commence works on termination of the tenancy.
Tenant Refusal of Access Was Irrelevant
The landlord argued that it had been prevented from progressing its planning application because the tenant had declined to permit access for surveys and investigations.
The court rejected that argument.
Fancourt J held that the landlord’s inability to undertake further investigations simply reflected the contractual arrangements agreed between the parties. It did not alter the statutory requirements under Ground (f).
This aspect of the judgment may provide encouragement to tenants facing redevelopment claims based on schemes that remain insufficiently advanced.
Funding Still Matters
The landlord also challenged the first instance finding that it had failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of obtaining funding.
The proposed lender had issued indicative terms but required personal guarantees from the directors of the landlord company.
The trial judge found there was insufficient evidence regarding the directors’ financial standing to establish that acceptable guarantees could be provided.
The High Court upheld that finding.
The decision serves as a reminder that landlords relying on Ground (f) must be prepared to produce robust evidence not only of their redevelopment intentions but also of their ability to finance the proposed scheme.
Practical Implications
This decision is likely to become an important authority in future Ground (f) disputes.
For landlords
Landlords considering redevelopment-based opposition should ensure:
- Schemes are well advanced before trial;
- Planning issues have been addressed wherever possible;
- Funding arrangements are supported by clear evidence;
- Redevelopment timetables demonstrate that works can commence shortly after possession is recovered.
For tenants
Tenants facing Ground (f) opposition should carefully scrutinise:
- Development programmes;
- Planning status;
- Funding arrangements;
- Any substantial delay between possession and commencement of works.
The judgment confirms that a landlord cannot simply rely on a credible explanation for delay. The court must be satisfied that the intended works will genuinely be undertaken on, or within a relatively short period following, termination of the existing tenancy.
How Streathers Can Help
Our Litigation and Property Disputes team advises both landlords and tenants in relation to:
- Business lease renewals under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954;
- Ground (f) redevelopment opposition claims;
- Commercial landlord and tenant disputes;
- Possession proceedings;
- Development-related litigation;
- Property and real estate disputes.
If you are considering opposing a lease renewal on redevelopment grounds, or facing a contested renewal claim, our specialist team can provide strategic and practical advice throughout the process.
