22 June 2018
Under a 12-month pilot scheme agreed late last year between the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) and the Central London County Court (CLCC) and launched in January, unopposed lease renewal claims under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (1954 Act) are now being transferred from the CLCC to the FTT in an attempt to smoothen and accelerate what is often a long-winded, costly process.
Background
A working group on property disputes, chaired by the President of the FTT, was set up by the Civil Justice Council to explore areas where the distribution of property cases between the courts and the FTT could be improved to optimise the use of judicial and administrative resources.
In a report dated May 2016, the group was "interested to note that there was some support for the determinations of rental levels in low value business tenancy renewal cases going to the Tribunal". The rationale for this proposition was that parallels exist between such cases and residential new lease applications already dealt with by the FTT, which would justify applying similar directions.
Key word: proportionality
While the renewal of a business tenancy is generally unopposed in principle, determining the terms of the new lease is rarely straightforward. The focus is almost always rent but disagreements commonly arise concerning term length, the grant of a break right or other terms modifying the existing lease. For this reason, current practice usually involves repeated stays of protective proceedings to allow for these terms to be negotiated.
Unopposed lease renewal claims almost never go to trial, but it will sometimes take years before a new lease is agreed to the parties' satisfaction. This is arguably legitimate, where a truly contentious point arises. On the other hand, this practice has raised concerns among Court officials, who are losing patience with tactical time extensions to protect parties' positions.
Despite an indication to the contrary in the 2016 report, it would seem that unopposed lease renewal claims of any value are susceptible to fall under the pilot scheme. Whether transferring a case to the FTT is appropriate will be at the courts' discretion, and parties should be alive to the changes such a transfer entails, however complex they believe their case to be. These changes are set out below.
A new 20-week procedure
In November 2017, the FTT published the draft Guidance and Standard Directions it proposes to apply to business lease renewal proceedings (updated versions have not been made publicly available and copies must be requested directly from the Tribunal).
Note that proceedings should still be issued at the CLCC (and the usual fees will remain payable), following which they will be automatically transferred to the FTT on issue if the case is considered appropriate.
The FTT's timetable is much shorter, and much less flexible, than the typical Court process. It mirrors that of residential leasehold enfranchisement cases. In summary:
What next?
We have noted very little information in the public domain about the progress of the pilot scheme so far, which suggests its application has been relatively narrow. However, with half a year left running, landlords and tenants who have served section 25 and section 26 notices expiring throughout the rest of 2018 should be ready to move quickly.
There is also potential for lasting reform; if the scheme is deemed successful, it should replace current practice altogether and be rolled out nationwide. However, our team have seen several renewals remain at the CLCC, on the basis that they are allocated to the Fast-Track.
Top Tips
In conclusion, legal practitioners, landlords and tenants alike should take this new system seriously and be as proactive and cooperative as possible in driving negotiations for a new lease. We should all welcome any incentives to speed up the renewal process and reduce costs, but it remains to be seen whether such drastic reorganisation is realistic from a practical point of view, or commercially sensible in high-value cases.
Mathilde Durand-Delacre
Bucknell v Alchemy Estates (Holywell) Ltd [2023] EWHC 683 (Ch)