- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Caterpillar Property Ltd & Anor v Park Cakes Ltd
Factual and Procedural Background
On 14 June 2007 Company A and Company B granted two identical 20-year leases of factories to Company C. Each lease included a tenant's option to renew (clause 7.2) permitting the tenant, if it gave at least 12 months' notice after the 17th year and subject to payment of rent up to the end of the term, to obtain a further 10-year lease on largely the same terms save for initial rent and the option wording. The rent under the contractual renewal mechanism would, by indexation, be higher than prevailing market rent. Company C therefore sought the protection of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 rather than to exercise the contractual option. The County Court (Judge Bond) held that the existence of the option did not exclude the tenancy from Part II. The landlords (Company A and Company B) were given permission to appeal; that permission was accepted on appeal. The Court of Appeal (Judge Lewison, Judge Asplin and Judge Laing) heard the appeal and announced that the appeal would be dismissed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the existence of a tenant's option to renew a lease amounts to an "agreement for the grant to the tenant of a future tenancy" within section 28 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 such that the tenancy is excluded from the protection of Part II of the 1954 Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The option should be treated, purposively, as an agreement within section 28 because an option is a contract sui generis that gives the tenant an effective right to call for a new lease; once granted it places the landlord under an obligation which prevents the landlord relying on statutory grounds of opposition under section 30.
- An option and a contract for a new lease both give the tenant a right to call for a new lease; characterising the option as an "agreement" furthers the policy of freedom of contract for commercial parties.
Respondent's Arguments
- Company C contended that the tenancy remained within Part II because the option was conditional and did not create mutual enforceable obligations until the option was validly exercised; the tenant therefore required the statutory protection rather than relying on the contractual option (particularly as the contractual rent under the option would be higher than market rent).
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Spiro v Glencrown Properties Ltd [1991] Ch 537 | Described options as contracts in a class of their own (sui generis) with characteristics of irrevocable offers and conditional contracts. | Cited to acknowledge the special nature of options but not to conclude that all options amount to section 28 agreements without further analysis. |
| O'May v City of London Real Property Co Ltd [1983] 2 AC 726 | Part II of the 1954 Act gives tenants the right to continue business but does not extend to other protections such as rent control. | Used to explain the policy context of Part II and Parliament's reluctance to restrict commercial freedom of contract. |
| Finch v Underwood (1876) 2 Ch D 310 | Illustrates that conditions attached to options must be strictly complied with and trivial breaches can defeat exercise. | Applied to show that options can be conditional in ways that make them less secure than statutory protection. |
| Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd v Eggleton [1983] 1 AC 444 | Characterises options as unilateral or "if" contracts that do not create mutual obligations until notice is given and the option is exercised. | Relied upon to support the view that an option only becomes a bilateral, enforceable contract when validly exercised. |
| RJ Stratton Ltd v Wallis Tomlin & Co Ltd [1986] 1 EGLR 104 | States that an "agreement" in sections 28 and 69 is a binding contractual arrangement enforceable at law. | Used to support the requirement that section 28 requires a mutually enforceable commitment by both parties before exclusion from Part II. |
| Re Portsmouth City FC Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 916, [2013] Bus LR 1152 at [38] | Permits the Court of Appeal to adopt and affirm a correct lower court judgment without repeating all reasoning. | Invoked to explain that the Court of Appeal could adopt and affirm the County Court judge's reasoning. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the legal nature of an option and the wording of section 28. It reasoned that an option typically imposes no obligation on the grantee and only a contingent obligation on the grantor that becomes binding upon valid exercise. Conditions attached to options (e.g. notice, payment of rent, performance of covenants, or third-party events) may require strict compliance; consequently an option can be a more precarious route to a future tenancy than the statutory regime. Relying on Sudbrook and RJ Stratton, the court held that section 28 requires a binding, mutually enforceable agreement for a future tenancy before Part II is displaced. Because the tenant in this case could not acquire mutually enforceable obligations until the option was validly exercised (and could not exercise it until after the 17th year and subject to conditions such as payment of rent), there was not, at the relevant stage, an "agreement" within section 28. The court therefore agreed with the County Court judge that the tenancy remained a tenancy to which Part II applied.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED
Direct effect: the County Court's decision that the tenancy remains subject to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 is upheld, so the tenant retains the statutory protection against termination and may apply for a new tenancy under the Act. The opinion does not purport to establish a novel principle beyond affirming that section 28 requires a mutually enforceable commitment; the Court adopted and affirmed the reasoning of the court below.
Alert