Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 91 (Jan)
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Chadwick LJ and Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

Representation Bryan McGuire (instructed by Hodders) for the claimant.
  Janet Bignell (instructed by Vizards Staples & Bannisters) for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 17 January 2002

Catchwords

Landlord and tenant - Business premises - Notice by landlord to terminate tenancy - Application by tenant for new tenancy - Landlord opposing application by stating intention to occupy premises for the purposes of a business - Landlord not holding controlling interest in business - Tenant first raising landlord's lack of controlling interest in closing speech - Judge adjourning proceedings - Landlord gaining controlling interest during adjournment - Judge admitting further evidence of landlord holding controlling interest - Whether judge correct to admit further evidence.

The Case

A tenant was not entitled to deliberately conceal knowledge that a landlord would be unable to satisfy statutory conditions. To do so would not be compatible with the overriding objective of the CPR and, where a tenant had done so and a landlord had, after the close of evidence, adduced further evidence, the judge had been correct in holding the balance of justice required that additional evidence to be taken into account.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.