A landlord can oppose the grant of a new lease under section 30(1)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) on the basis of persistent delay in paying rent. This Practice Note covers what needs to be evidenced to establish ground (b) and what the court will take into account in reaching a decision. LTA 1954, s 30(1)(b) provides that: '…the tenant ought not to be granted a new tenancy in view of his persistent delay in paying rent which has become due' There must be a history of late payment, although it need not be prolonged, nor need there be substantial arrears of rent. The court will look at the whole course of the current tenancy in order to decide whether any delay has been ‘persistent’. The court will look at: • the inconvenience that the landlord has been put to (see Horowitz v Ferrand [1956] CLY 4843 (not reported by LexisNexis®)) • the frequency of late payments, the length of delay, and whether the arrears are

A landlord can oppose the grant of a new lease under section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) by specifying ground of opposition (c): 'That the tenant ought not to be granted a new tenancy in view of other substantial breaches by him of his obligations under the current tenancy, or for any other reason connected with the tenant’s use or management of the holding.' The ground therefore consists of two limbs: substantial breaches of obligations, and other reasons connected with use or management of the holding. It is not necessary to establish a breach under the first limb in order to rely on other reasons under the second. In relation to the first limb, it will be a question of fact whether the breach complained of is substantial. The breach can relate to any part of the premises demised by the lease and is not limited to the ‘holding’ which the tenant is in occupation of. Relevant

A landlord can oppose the grant of a new lease under section 30(1)(d) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) on the ground that the landlord has offered and is willing to provide alternative accommodation for the tenant. This Practice Note covers what ground (d) is, what it means in practice, the elements which a landlord will need to prove to make out the ground and how the court may approach this ground of opposition. Under LTA 1954, s 30(1)(d), the landlord may oppose the grant of a new lease on grounds: ‘..that the landlord has offered and is willing to provide or secure the provision of alternative accommodation for the tenant, that the terms on which the alternative accommodation is available are reasonable having regard to the terms of the current tenancy and to all other relevant circumstances, and that the accommodation and the time at which it will be available are suitable for the tenant's requirements (including the requirement to preserve goodwill) having regard to the nature and class of his business

A landlord can oppose the grant of a new business lease under ground (e) in section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant 1954 (LTA 1954). This Practice Note covers what ground (e) is, when it is used and how the court deals with opposition to the grant of a new lease on this basis. A landlord can oppose the grant of a new lease under ground (e) in section 30(1) of LTA 1954 if: • the current tenancy (T) was created by the sub-letting of part only of the property comprised in a superior tenancy, and • the landlord owns an interest in reversion to the superior tenancy • the aggregate of the rents reasonably

A landlord who wishes to oppose the grant of a lease on redevelopment grounds may do so under section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) by specifying ground of opposition (f), if they can show that on the termination of the current tenancy they intend to demolish or reconstruct the premises comprised in the holding or a substantial part of those premises, or carry out substantial works of construction on the holding or part thereof and that they could not reasonably do so without obtaining possession of the holding. This Practice Note explains the elements which must be satisfied (proving ground (f) intention, evidence of intention, nature of works) in order for a landlord to make out this ground of opposition. It also covers the tenant’s ability to rely on LTA 1954, s 31A and statutory compensation under LTA 1954, s 37. Section 30(1)(f) of the LTA 1954 provides that one of the grounds on which a landlord can oppose the grant of a new lease is: ‘that

Section 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) provides that one of the grounds on which a landlord can oppose the grant of a new lease is: ‘subject as hereinafter provided, that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to occupy the holding for the purposes, or partly for the purposes, of a business to be carried on by him therein, or as his residence’. For more information regarding the other grounds of opposition, see Practice Note: Summary of landlord's grounds of opposition. Accordingly, under ground (g), a landlord may: • oppose an application for the grant of a new tenancy, or • make an application for the termination of a tenancy without the grant of new tenancy on the ground that on the termination of the current tenancy they intend to occupy the holding for the purposes, or partly for the purposes, of a business to be carried on by them, or as their residence. They need not show that they intend to

Excavation to allow for the foundations and substructure of a building.

means, in relation to a company, that company, any subsidiary or holding company [from time to time OR at the date of this agreement] of that company[ and any subsidiary [from time to time OR at the date of this agreement] of a holding company of that company];

means, in relation to a company, any member of its Group;

A Group Litigation Order (“GLO”) means an order made under rule 19.11 to provide for the case management of claims which give rise to common or related issues of fact or law (the “GLO issues”).

This Practice Note examines Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) in the context of financial services disputes. It compares GLOs with: • other forms of multi-party litigation: ◦ consolidation of proceedings (CPR 3.1(2)(h)) ◦ representative actions (CPR 19.8) ◦ ‘omnibus claims’ (CPR 7.3) ◦ test cases following complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) (DISP 3.4.2R) ◦ the Financial Markets Test Case Procedure (CPR 63A, CPR PD 63AA) ◦ collective proceedings for competition law breaches • collective redress that may be obtained through regulatory action by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA): ◦ consumer redress schemes (FSMA 2000, s 404) ◦ restitution orders (FSMA 2000, ss 382–384) It also considers relevant case law and GLOs in practice. Origins of Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) GLOs were introduced in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs) 2000 following recommendations by Lord Woolf in his report on Access to Justice (1996). The objective

What is a group litigation order? Group litigation orders (GLOs) will be appropriate where claims arise from similar circumstances. Such orders may be made where a number of claims ‘give rise to common or related issues of fact or law’. Multiple claims can be managed by the court under a GLO which may be made before or after the commencement of proceedings, for the management and trial of a number of claims together. Management of claims under a GLO will involve cost savings and the more efficient use of court time and resources. Importantly, where there are sufficiently similar issues to be tried together, such an order will ensure consistency and avoid different decisions being made on the same issues on the same facts. For further information, see Practice Note: Group litigation orders—introduction. Costs CPR 46.6(2) provides that generally group litigation costs are divided between the generic work which relates to the issues common to all of the group and the individual work being the work relating to the individual