|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Ivorygrove Ltd. v Global Grange Ltd  EWHC 1409 (Ch) (18 June 2003)
Cite as:  NPC 78,  26 EG 179,  1 P & CR 11,  4 All ER 144,  1 WLR 2090,  2 EGLR 87,  EWHC 1409 (Ch),  WLR 2090
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report:  1 WLR 2090] [Help]
On Appeal from the Central London County Court
(Claim No. CL053222)
(HH Judge Green QC)
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|IVORYGROVE LIMITED - Appellant/Claimant|
|GLOBAL GRANGE LIMITED - Respondent/Defendant|
|Approved by the Court for handing down|
Mr James Thom QC (instructed by Howard Kennedy) for the Respondent/Defendant
APPROVED BY THE COURT FOR HANDING DOWN
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Lawrence Collins:
II Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 ("the 1954 Act")
"that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises comprised in the holding or a substantial part of those premises or to carry out substantial work of construction on the holding or part thereof and that he could not reasonably do so without obtaining possession of the holding."
III The decision of HH Judge Green QC
A. The issues
B. The judge's findings of fact
C. The judge's approach and conclusions
IV The Marazzi case
A. Decision of HH Judge Dean QC
B. HH Judge Green QC's treatment of the Marazzi decision
C. Appeal to Mr Justice Park
"essentially on the ground that the decision which the judge reached was properly open to him. Thus I cannot say that his decision was wrong. It does not necessarily follow that if he had found that paragraph (f) did apply, that finding would have been wrong … I can well imagine that, if the question before me had been the question before Judge Dean, I might well have been persuaded that the conditions of paragraph (f) did apply."
V The application by Ivorygrove
VI Conclusions: legal principles and the judge's findings
"For works to qualify as 'reconstruction' within para (f) it must be shown primarily that they are works of rebuilding involving a substantial interference with the structure of the building, but structure is not necessarily confined to outside or other load-bearing walls …"
"I consider that whether or not works fall within the definition of 'construction' must depend upon the facts in each case in which the problem falls to be considered … If it is necessary to decide whether or not in any given case it is necessary for works to involve directly the structure of the building in some way, my own view would be that this is implicit in the generality of section 30(1)(f). In other words, that some form of building upon the premises which involves the structure is required. I would not consider wooden partitions however extensive, as falling within the definition of 'construction', but such a situation would have to be reviewed in accordance with the facts of any given case."
" … the cases referred to therein (and, in my judgment, the other cases relied on by the tenant) may be authority for the proposition that where the demised property includes structural parts of the building there can never be reconstruction (or demolition) unless there is some demolition or alteration to a load-bearing part of the structure (or, I would add, in agreement with the judge, enclosing walls, floor and ceiling even if not load-bearing or structural) included in the demised property … I[n] my judgment they go no further."
"I agree, also, with the view expressed by Charles J …that there is nothing in the passages in the authorities upon which the tenant relies—Percy E Cadle & Co Ltd v Jacmarch Properties Ltd  1 QB 323, 328, 329, Joel v Swaddle  1 WLR 1094, 1099, 1100, 1101, Barth v Prichard  1 EGLR 109, 111d-e, j-k and Romulus Trading Co Ltd v Henry Smith's Charity Trustees  2 EGLR 75, 76-77—which compels, or even supports, the conclusion for which they were cited: that 'premises' in section 30(1)(f) of the Act is confined to parts of a built structure which perform some structural function. What is plain from those passages is that cases on the meaning of 'demolish' or 'reconstruct' for the purposes of section 30(1)(f) of the 1954 Act turn on their particular facts. In each case the relevant questions are: (i) what are the physical features of the property comprised in the tenancy; (ii) what, amongst those features, is capable of being demolished and reconstructed; (iii) is what is being done to those features which are capable of being demolished and reconstructed, taken as a whole, properly to be described as demolition or reconstruction of those features or a substantial part of them? It is, I think, wrong to start from the premise that physical features which are not load-bearing are incapable of being demolished and reconstructed, although it may well be that, in the particular case where there are load-bearing features, work which does not involve the demolition or reconstruction of any of those load-bearing features will not meet the test under (iii). But there is no reason why, in a case where there are physical features which are capable of being demolished and reconstructed, but none which are load-bearing, the test under (iii) should not apply, or should not be met in appropriate circumstances."