The importance of hard deadlines and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

This case serves as a crucial reminder about the importance of acting in advance of a statutory deadline pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (1954 Act) and will certainly be one to watch in the coming months.    

Upon receipt of a section 25 notice, the onus will be on the tenant to ensure that it has taken steps to protect its position in advance of the date specified in the notice (known as the statutory deadline).  In the absence of agreeing an extension to the statutory deadline, the tenant will need to issue protective renewal proceedings itself, otherwise it will lose its security of tenure and right to remain in occupation.   

 

Background

Sunnymeads Motor Co (Sunnymead) was the tenant of a premises, leased to it by Tolfree-Cross (Landlord). Sunnymead's lease was a protected tenancy. Therefore, Sunnymead enjoyed security of tenure under the 1954 Act. The chronology of events can be summarised as follows:

• In February 2024, the Landlord served a hostile s25 notice pursuant to the 1954 Act on Sunnymead specifying that the tenancy would end on 3 September 2024 – the statutory deadline.
• On 2 September 2024, the day before the statutory deadline, an employee of Sunnymead went to the County Court and submitted an application for a new tenancy. Instead of providing payment of the court fees in person at the time of making the application, Sunnymead provided a contact number and invited the Court to take payment of the fee for the application over the phone.
• On 3 September 2024, the director of Sunnymead called the Court but the Court couldn't confirm that it had received the application. Therefore, Sunnymead filed a second application on 3 September 2024 – this time with an unsigned cheque for the relevant court fee. 
• In a letter from the Court, dated 4 September 2024, the Court told Sunnymead that it had received two applications which appeared to be "for the same purpose". The Court was further confused by the fact that one of the applications contained an incomplete cheque and the other had a telephone number for payment of the relevant court fee. The Court requested that the application be resubmitted, which Sunnymead did on 9 September 2024.
• On 12 September 2024, Sunnymead's third application was processed. However, the Landlord had already taken back possession of the premises on 11 September 2024 on the assumption that Sunnymead hadn't taken action by the statutory deadline and its lease had come to an end.  Sunnymead made an application to the High Court asking for an interim injunction so that it could be allowed back into the premises.
• On 24 September 2024, the High Court granted Sunnymead its interim injunction which required the Landlord to let Sunnymead back into the premises and to not interfere with Sunnymead's use of the premises. The High Court listed a return hearing.
• On the day before the return hearing, the Landlord submitted fresh witness evidence which alleged that Sunnymead was committing a nuisance at the premises and that the injunction should be cancelled on grounds that Sunnymead's third application (the one that was processed by the Court on 12 September 2024) hadn’t been made before the statutory deadline.

 

The Return Hearing

Sunnymead argued that its application for a new tenancy was valid and that in accordance with the White Book guidance, the Courts can take a liberal approach to "technical errors" when it comes to issuing proceedings in time.  Therefore, the question of whether the application had been made validly was a serious issue to be tried by the Court and it was therefore correct to grant the injunction in the interim.

The Court upheld Sunnymead's request for the injunction.  In reaching this decision, the key findings of the Court were:

1. There was a serious issue to be tried. Whilst there was case law surrounding the circumstances where the Court may take a liberal approach for miscalculation of the correct court fee at the time of issuing proceedings, the point hadn’t yet been considered in the context of where "no payment" at all had been made.  Therefore, this issue needed to be determined by the Court.  
2. The balance of convenience was in favour of Sunnymead. By submitting its witness evidence the day before the return hearing, the Landlord had forced the Court into an uncomfortable position.  By making the allegations last minute, Sunnymead had no opportunity to respond and ultimately the Court was being asked to accept the Landlord's evidence as wholly true and accurate which would be grossly unfair to Sunnymead. Therefore, the balance of convenience tilted in favour of Sunnymead.

 

Key Takeaway Points

Applications to the Court to issue renewal proceedings shouldn’t be left to the last minute. Not only could technical difficulties arise (as seen in this case) but there are other unforeseen obstacles that may need to be resolved in advance of and/or at the time of making an application - e.g. needing the Court's authority to serve outside of the jurisdiction.  If tenants are unsure of the process to be followed, legal advice should be sought as a priority and well in advance of the statutory deadline.

As for Sunnymead, this saga is not yet over.  It will now be for the Courts to determine whether or not a valid application was made and ultimately, whether Sunnymead still has a right of occupation.