Introduction

Anixter Ltd v. the Secretary of State for Transport ([2020] EWCA Civ 43) is a landmark case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on January 30, 2020. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of "long tenancy which is about to expire" under the Compulsory Purchase (General Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 ("1981 Act") and the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 ("1965 Act"). Anixter Ltd, a tenant occupying four units at Saltley Business Park in Birmingham, faced compulsory purchase due to the construction of the HS2 railway. The appeal questioned whether Anixter had served counter-notices timely and correctly to trigger the acquisition of its interests in all four buildings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT), concluding that Anixter's tenancy of Unit R was indeed a "long tenancy which is about to expire." Consequently, the time for serving a counter-notice began when the notice to treat was delivered. The UT lacked the authority to extend this time. Therefore, Anixter was within its rights to serve counter-notices under the relevant legislation, effectively requiring the acquisition of all its interests in the four units at Saltley Business Park.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key cases that influenced the court's decision:

• Scholl MFG Co Ltd v Clifton (Slim-Line) Ltd [1967] Ch. 41: Established that non-compliant notices terminate contracts but not tenancies.
• Esselte AB v Pearl Assurance plc [1997] 1 WLR 891: Discussed the broad interpretation of "occupation for business purposes" under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
• Newham LBC v Benjamin [1968] 1 WLR 694: Explored the assessment of compensation based on the remaining contractual term of a tenancy.
• Singh v Dass [2019] EWCA Civ 360: Outlined principles for raising new points on appeal.
• UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster City Council [2018] UKSC 67 and Freetown Ltd v Assethold Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1657: Clarified the interpretation and timing of service under the Interpretation Act 1978.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning centered on interpreting the statutory phrase "long tenancy which is about to expire." Key points include:

• Definition Interpretation: The court emphasized that the definition must be applied based on the contractual term of the tenancy at the vesting date, not on potential statutory continuations.
• Assumptions Under Section 2(2): It is assumed that tenants will exercise renewal options and landlords will exercise termination rights, ensuring clarity and eliminating uncertainty.
• Time Limits for Counter-Notices: The court upheld the 28-day period for serving counter-notices under the 1965 Act, starting from the date of delivery, not from when the tenant becomes aware of the notice.
• Exclusion from GVD: Because Anixter's tenancy was deemed a "long tenancy which is about to expire," it was excluded from the General Vesting Declaration (GVD), allowing the counter-notice to be served.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future compulsory purchase cases, particularly in how "long tenancies which are about to expire" are interpreted. It clarifies the interaction between the 1981 and 1965 Acts, ensuring that time limits for counter-notices are strictly adhered to based on delivery rather than awareness. This decision reinforces the importance of timely and correct service of notices and provides a clearer framework for both acquiring authorities and tenants in similar disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Anixter Ltd v. Secretary of State for Transport provides critical clarity on the interpretation of "long tenancy which is about to expire" within compulsory purchase legislation. By affirming that the determination is based on the contractual term at the vesting date, the judgment ensures a more predictable and structured approach for both tenants and acquiring authorities. This ruling not only strengthens the procedural aspects of compulsory purchase but also underscores the necessity for precise service of notices to uphold legal rights and obligations effectively.