Business tenancy A commercial tenancy which is a ‘business tenancy’ attracts security of tenure under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). A business tenancy is one where the property is occupied for the purposes of a trade or profession within the meaning of LTA 1954, s 23 (see Practice Note: LTA 1954 business lease renewal—termination), unless: • it is specifically excluded by reason of LTA 1954, s 43, or • the parties have contracted out the provisions of LTA 1954, under section 38—see: Contracting out—overview • occupation is as licensee or tenant at will Where security of tenure applies, the end of the contractual term does not mean the end of the tenancy. The

Under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) a landlord may terminate a tenancy to which the LTA 1954 applies by giving a notice to the tenant in the prescribed form. A section 25 notice (LTA 1954, s 25) may not be served at all if the tenant has already made a request for a new tenancy under LTA 1954, s 26, which is assumed not to be the case here. It is a statutory requirement under LTA 1954, s 25(1) that the landlord’s section 25 notice should specify the date at which the tenancy is to come to an end, a date which is defined as 'the date of termination'. Where the current tenancy is a fixed term tenancy with no landlord’s break option, as here, the date of termination

Under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) a landlord may terminate a tenancy to which the LTA 1954 applies by giving a notice to the tenant in the prescribed form. A section 25 notice (LTA 1954, s 25) may not be served at all if the tenant has already made a request for a new tenancy under LTA 1954, s 26, which is assumed not to be the case here. It is a statutory requirement under LTA 1954, s 25(1) that the landlord’s section 25 notice should specify the date at which the tenancy is to come to an end, a date which is defined as 'the date of termination'. Where the current tenancy is a fixed term tenancy with no landlord’s

We have assumed that on the basis of the reference to a ‘renewal’, the tenant has a lease within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). A tenant with a lease within LTA 1954 is entitled to vacate the premises on expiry of their contractual term and rely on LTA 1954, s 27(1A) rather than needing to give a section 27 notice. Both their contractual interest and their security of tenure will come to an end at that date on the basis that no statutory continuation tenancy under LTA 1954, s 24 can arise if the tenant has given up occupation when the tenancy expires (furthermore, assuming that, by virtue of the subtenancies, the tenant does not occupy

Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 provides for statutory security of tenure for most business tenancies. As a result a tenancy does not expire by effluxion of time but continues and either the landlord or the tenant can apply to the court for the grant of a new tenancy. The landlord can terminate the tenancy only through following the procedure as set out in LTA 1954. From time to time, a lease of commercial premises may require the addition of a third party where a right is required to be granted over land owned by that third party, such as a right of access. In Nevill Long and Co (Boards)

For the purpose of this Q&A we have assumed that the renewal of the business tenancy is unopposed by the landlord and that section 26 notice has been validly served. Background In accordance with section 23 the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), a business tenant will be entitled to a new lease of their premises at the end of the contractual term as long as they satisfy the criteria, ie whether there is a tenancy, are the premises occupied for the purpose of a business, and whether the business is carried out by the tenant. A tenant must then serve a section 26 notice in accordance with LTA 1954, s 66(4). The tenant’s request for a new tenancy must not be more than

The Q&A appears to assume the premises concerned are occupied pursuant to a lease (only a lease can be forfeited). This may or may not be the case. Is there a tenancy? It is possible that the licence pursuant to which the tenant was occupying was in fact a lease. Whether this was the case will depend on the facts of the matter. The most significant determining factor is whether the occupier has exclusive possession of the premises (Street v Mountford). If the occupier had exclusive possession, it is more likely there was a tenancy. If there was a tenancy, depending on its length and how long the

For the purposes of this Q&A, it is assumed that the business is a sole trading business or similar, rather than a partnership or unincorporated association. A protected tenancy under the Rent Act 1977 (RA 1977) is a tenancy created before the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) regime, providing for the default tenancy to be an (which came into force on 15 January 1989). It provides a statutory framework in respect of tenancies granted prior to that time, and gives significant protection to the protected tenant. The most significant of these protections is long-term security of tenure, meaning that a protected tenancy can only be terminated in certain specified circumstances. It also provides rent protection, allowing the tenant to apply for an assessment

This Q&A deals with the situation where a business to business (B2B) contract provides for a fee to be increased annually at the supplier’s ‘prevailing rate’. The issue is whether there is a requirement for such rate increase to be ‘reasonable’. B2B contracts Unlike contracts between a business and a consumer, contracts between two businesses are not subject to the various statutory provisions that confer protection on consumers such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, SI 2008/1277. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 does place some restriction on terms to which businesses can agree. However, the ‘reasonableness’ test as set out in that act only applies to exclusion clauses limiting liability. In essence, businesses are generally entitled to enter into whatever commercial agreements they agree between themselves. Construction of commercial contracts In

Under the Late Payment of Commercial Debt (Interests) Act 1988 (LPCD(I)A 1998) contracting parties are free to agree their own terms for a remedy to late payment, known as ‘contractual interest’, in place of the statutory interest provided in LPCD(I)A 1998 provided the contractual interest is a ‘substantial remedy’. The Grand Committee on the Bill for LPCD(I)A 1998 in the House of Lords, the Minister said as follows: ‘Clause 8 provides that variations of the right to interest are valid only if the right, as varied, or the overall remedy for late payment is substantial.’ (Hansard (House of Lords Debate) , 28 January 1998, CWH11). An express interest clause is only effective if it provides a substantial remedy for late payment. It can be said that if there is a valid clause to address the interest

This Q&A considers whether upgrades to a new-build would increase the purchase price for stamp duty land tax (SDLT) purposes. This all comes down to what amounts are required to be included in chargeable consideration for the land transaction. This point is dealt with at paragraph

The answer is, generally, yes. In the typical example of the scenario where a buyer and seller enter into a contract, the completion of which is conditional on the buyer obtaining planning permission, it is sometimes agreed that the seller may retain the deposit if the contract is terminated because the buyer has not satisfied the condition. Although this may, at first glance, appear harsh on the buyer, from