Opposing Lease Renewals in 2025: Key Case Law Shaping Landlord Rights Under the LTA 1954

A tenant that occupies premises for the purposes of its business, subject to certain exceptions, will have “security of tenure” under the LTA 1954 – a statutory right to renew their lease when it expires.

However, even where these provisions protect a lease, a landlord is not obliged to grant a new lease and can oppose the grant of a new tenancy using one or more of the 7 grounds set out in Section 30(1) of the LTA, namely:

a) Failure to comply with repair obligations under the lease;

b) Persistent delay in paying rent;

c) Other substantial breaches of the obligations under the lease or if any other reason connected with the tenant’s use or management of the holding;

d) Suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant;

e) Tenancy was created by a sub-letting;

f) Landlord intends to redevelop; and

g) The Landlord intends to occupy the premises.

In this widely publicised case, the landlord sought to oppose the renewal of a lease held by Leadmill, a well-known live music venue that hosts artists such as Oasis, Coldplay, and Arctic Monkeys. 

In this case, MVL served a notice under Section 25 of the 1954 Act, citing ground (g) as its ground of opposition and providing evidence that it would carry on the same type of business at the premises.

The tenant challenged this firstly by stating the landlord simply did not have the funds to do so.  Interestingly, and also unusually, the tenant advanced an additional argument which was that by carrying on the same business, this would infringe the tenant's right to property under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

This is because MVL's new venue would mislead customers into believing that the new venue was associated with Leadmill's "goodwill", which constituted a possession under the ECHR. 

Despite the arguments raised by the tenant, the High Court held that Section 30(1)(g) did not breach the ECHR.

The court accepted that "goodwill" can be a "possession" under the ECHR, but stated that the tenant failed to produce actual evidence of the presence of goodwill in this case.

They also went on to state that even if there was some "deprivation" or "interference" of the right, this was in the public interest. The landlord's ground of opposition was successful, and they recovered possession of the property.

Monitoring and examining how the court evaluates evidence in these types of claims provides us with useful insight, and these cases are no exception.

It is clear that there is a strong focus on striking a fair balance between a tenant's right of renewal and a landlord's right to repossession under the LTA 1954, and the above cases illustrate how outcomes can differ depending on their discrete facts.

On one hand, the judgment in favour of MVL reassures landlords that taking a property back for their own business is generally well accepted and remains justified where there is a genuine intention to do so.

However, at the same time, the judgment in favour of Spirit Pub serves as a protection for tenants as it highlights that Ground F is judged on tangible realities, meaning future landlords should have credible, well-developed plans in place.

It is essential that landlords considering an opposed renewal on Ground F ensure that they plan carefully and can demonstrate that their proposal is not simply an idea, but an actionable and realistic plan with appropriate funding.

The court is expected to maintain this balanced approach in future cases to uphold the integrity of commercial property law, as the public interest lies in promoting both business stability and property investment.