I predict a riot?

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the 1954 Act) provides a mechanism for security of tenure for business tenants (subject to exceptions) and allows tenants to apply for a new lease at the end of their tenancy. One exception open to a landlord is owner occupation and this was relied upon in the recent case of MVL Properties (2017) Ltd v The Leadmill Ltd, a case concerning the iconic Leadmill events venue in Sheffield which has hosted acts such as The Killers, Coldplay and the Kaiser Chiefs.

The background

The venue was purchased in 2017 by MVL, a subsidiary of a company which runs music venues in historic buildings across several locations in the UK.  Toward the end of Leadmill’s lease MVL gave notice of its intention to oppose the grant of a new tenancy on the basis that it intended to carry out a minor refurbishment of the premises but then operate it as a music venue as part of its portfolio of venues under a new brand.

Demonstrating grounds for opposing a lease extension under Section 31(1)(g)

By way of a recap, in order to demonstrate the ground of opposition the landlord must demonstrate both a subjective intention to occupy and a reasonable prospect of being able to do so.  The Court had little difficulty in establish that both these elements could be established given the track record and business model of MVL and its group.  There was some debate over the timeframe over which the landlord intended to undertake its works and then open for trade but that issue was ultimately determined in favour of the landlord.

The European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention)

Somewhat unusually the tenant sought to resist the landlord’s claim under the Convention, with Leadmill contending that to give possession to the landlord would infringe its rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1 P1).

A1 P1 protects the right to property.  The argument deployed by Leadmill was that the Landlord intended to carry on essentially the same business as it had, thus expropriating Leadmill’s goodwill and violating its right to property under A1 P1.  The property in this case was Leadmill’s goodwill.  The existence of a right to compensation under the 1954 Act was not relevant under Leadmill’s argument.  The very act of dispossessing Leadmill of the premises led to MVL taking advantage of that goodwill and so the act of ordering possession infringed the Convention right.

While the Convention argument was very much driven by the facts of this case and the venue in question, the court rejected the novel arguments under A1 P1 for two main reasons.

First, there was an evidential issue.  The Court noted that “goodwill” referred to a business’ reputation which enabled it to connect with and be attractive to customers.  While it could in some cases amount to a possession (to which A1 P1 could then apply), Leadmill had the burden of proving the existence of such a “possession” and had failed to do so.

Second, the nature of MVL’s works would be to reduce the venue to a shell, meaning any goodwill attached to the look and feel of the venue and Leadmill’s brand would be extinguished.  In short the works undertaken by MVL would remove traces of Leadmill meaning there was nothing of Leadmill’s that would be exploited.

The Court confirmed that the 1954 Act struck a fair balance between landlords’ and tenants’ property rights and that there was nothing in the 1954 Act arising out of the arguments raised by Leadmill that would contravene the Convention and with the landlord able to establish the necessary intention to occupy the premises the claim for possession by the landlord was successful.

You can read a copy of the judgment at the following link: MVL Properties (2017) Ltd v The Leadmill Ltd [2025] EWHC 349 (Ch) (19 February 2025)

How we can help

If you would like advice on any of the issues raised in this article, please get in touch with our property dispute resolution team.