Macey v Pizza Express (Restaurants) Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant, Company A, occupied premises at The City pursuant to a 25-year lease executed in 1995. The lease term expired in 2020 but continued under statutory provisions. The Appellant, the landlord under the lease, served a notice in April 2020 seeking to terminate the tenancy and opposed the grant of a new tenancy, relying on statutory grounds related to the landlord's intention to occupy the premises for business or residence purposes.

The matter was ordered to be tried as a preliminary issue before a Judge in December 2020, who heard evidence from the Appellant and a witness from Company A. The Judge delivered a reserved judgment in February 2021, determining the preliminary issue against the Appellant and ordering him to pay Company A’s costs.

The Appellant obtained permission to appeal the order, advancing six grounds of appeal. Company A filed a Respondent’s Notice contending alternative grounds for upholding the order and judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant possessed the requisite subjective intention under section 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to occupy the premises for business or residence purposes at the termination of the current tenancy.
2. Whether the Judge correctly applied the legal principles concerning intention, including the interpretation of "subjective" and "objective" intention and the relevance of conditional intention as articulated in precedent.
3. Whether the Judge erred in his evaluation of evidence and burden of proof relating to the Appellant's intention.
4. Whether the Judge provided adequate reasons for his decision.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by articulating the relevant law on landlord's intention under sections 30(1)(f) and (g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, emphasizing the requirement of a firm and settled subjective intention to occupy the premises for business or residence purposes. The court noted that intention is a factual matter with both subjective and objective elements, but the subjective element is central.

The Judge at first instance found the Appellant’s evidence unsatisfactory and lacking corroboration, noting suspicious inconsistencies and insufficient demonstration of commitment, including the absence of significant incurred costs. The Judge preferred the evidence of the Defendant’s witness, who expressed serious reservations about the Appellant’s intention.

Adverse inferences were drawn against the Appellant for failing to call potentially supportive witnesses. The Judge concluded that the Appellant failed to prove the necessary subjective intention, a conclusion supported by the evidence and the burden of proof resting on the Appellant.

On appeal, the court rejected arguments that the Judge misapplied the law, erred in his treatment of evidence, or failed to provide adequate reasons. The court clarified that the Judge’s decision rested solely on the absence of subjective intention, not on objective or conditional intention. The court also emphasized the high threshold for overturning factual findings made by a trial judge who heard the witnesses.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the decision that the Appellant did not demonstrate the requisite subjective intention to occupy the premises as required under the relevant statutory provision. Consequently, the preliminary issue was rightly decided against the Appellant, and the order for costs in favor of the Defendant stands. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision primarily affects the parties by affirming the trial judge’s factual findings and legal application in this matter.