The application of human rights law in commercial lease renewals under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

In the recent High Court case of MVL Properties (2017) Ltd v The Leadmill Ltd [2025] EWHC 349 (Ch), the court addressed significant issues concerning the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) and the application of human rights law in commercial lease renewals.

Case Background

The Leadmill, an iconic music venue in Sheffield operating since 1982, faced the end of its 20-year lease in March 2023. The landlord, MVL Properties (2017) Ltd, served a notice under section 25 of the LTA 1954, opposing the grant of a new tenancy on the grounds of its intention to occupy the premises for its own business purposes, specifically to operate a music venue under a different brand. citeturn0search1

Legal Framework: Section 30(1)(g) of the LTA 1954

Under the LTA 1954, tenants of commercial leases generally enjoy security of tenure, allowing them to apply for a new lease upon expiry of the current term. However, landlords can oppose this renewal on certain grounds, including section 30(1)(g), which permits opposition if the landlord intends to occupy the premises for the purposes of its own business. citeturn0search1

Court's Findings

The court had to determine whether MVL had both a genuine intention to occupy the premises for its own business and a reasonable prospect of achieving this intention within a reasonable time frame. Key findings included:

• Subjective Intention: The court accepted MVL's firm and settled intention to operate a music venue at the premises, supported by evidence such as obtaining planning consents, applying for a premises licence, and registering the trademark "Electric Sheffield". citeturn0search1

• Objective Feasibility: Despite the tenant's argument that the cost and duration of necessary refurbishment would render MVL's plans unviable, the court found the landlord's projected 35-week refurbishment program reasonable and achievable. citeturn0search1

Human Rights Argument

The Leadmill Ltd contended that granting possession to MVL would infringe its rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (A1 P1), arguing that MVL's operation of a similar music venue would appropriate the tenant's goodwill without adequate compensation. The court rejected this argument, stating that:

• While goodwill can be considered a possession under A1 P1, the tenant failed to provide sufficient evidence of such goodwill. citeturn0search2

• The LTA 1954 provides tenants with a contingent right to renew, not an absolute one; therefore, the landlord's intention to occupy the premises for its own business did not unlawfully deprive the tenant of its possessions. citeturn0search2

Implications for Commercial Clients

This case offers several important takeaways for commercial landlords and tenants:

1. Evidence of Intent: Landlords must provide clear and convincing evidence of their intention to occupy premises for their own business to successfully oppose lease renewals under section 30(1)(g).

2. Goodwill Considerations: Tenants should be aware that while goodwill is a recognized asset, proving its existence and value requires substantial evidence.

3. Human Rights Arguments: Invoking human rights provisions, such as A1 P1, in commercial lease disputes requires a robust demonstration of how these rights are impacted, which can be challenging to establish.

In conclusion, the MVL Properties v The Leadmill case underscores the importance of thorough preparation and evidence when navigating lease renewal disputes, highlighting that both statutory provisions and human rights considerations can play pivotal roles in the outcome.