In this episode, Richard and Lizzie unpack the County Court’s decision in Star Pubs Trading Ltd v Gunmakers Arms (Essex) LLP and what it means for landlords, tenants, pub operators, and commercial property lawyers.

The court ruled that Star Pubs could successfully oppose lease renewal under Ground G of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, despite day-to-day pub operations being carried out by a third-party contractor.

Why? Star Pubs still controlled the pricing, branding, contracts, marketing, and overall retail strategy. The business, legally speaking, remained theirs.

Richard explore’s what “occupation for your own business” really means in modern commercial leasing, why physical presence is not the deciding factor, and how this case fits alongside authorities including Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports, S Frances Ltd v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Mellcraft.

Relevant cases:
Humber Oil Terminals Trustee Ltd v Associated British Ports [2012]
Cunliffe v Goodman [1951]
S Frances Ltd v Cavendish Hotel (London) Ltd [2012]
Dellneed Ltd v Chin (1987)
Brumwell v Powys County Council [2011]
Teesside Indoor Bowls Limited v Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council [1990]
Graysim Holdings v P&O Property Holdings [1996]
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea v Mellcraft [2024]

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email djb.events@djblaw.co.uk for information and booking.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!

Does a telecoms operator need to physically occupy the demised premises for the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to apply? According to the Upper Tribunal in EE v Clock Tower Investments Limited [2026] UKUT 163 (LC), the answer may be far more complicated than expected.

In this episode, Richard and Lizzie unpack the surprising decision that a telecommunications lease could still benefit from the protection of the 1954 Act even where the operator did not physically occupy the demised ground itself, instead using adjacent roof space through installation and access rights.

The case raises important questions around what “occupation for business purposes” really means.

Richard discusses:
•Why the Upper Tribunal decided the 1954 Act applied
•The significance of business occupation under the Act
•The difference between physical possession and operational control
•The wider implications for landlords, operators and property lawyers.

Relevant cases:
Land Reclamation Co Ltd v Basildon District Council [1979]
Pointon York Group Plc v Ann Doreen Poulton (2006)
Re No 1 Albemarle Street [1959]
Moody v Steggles (1879)
Re Ellenborough Park [1955]
Re Salvin’s Indenture [1938]
Stenner v Teignbridge DC [2025]
AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd v On Tower (UK) Limited [2025]

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email djb.events@djblaw.co.uk for information and booking.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!

In this episode, Richard and Lizzie unpack the Court of Appeal’s remarkably fast-tracked judgment handed down on 13th May, following the original County Court decision on 20th March. The case raises a fascinating and largely untested argument under section 28 of the 1954 Act: can an option to renew amount to an agreement for lease, taking it outside the protection of the Act altogether?

Richard discusses the background facts, why the appeal moved through the courts so rapidly, what the Court of Appeal decided, and what landlords, tenants and property lawyers should now be thinking about when drafting and exercising renewal options.

For anyone dealing with commercial leases, security of tenure or renewal rights, this is a case worth watching closely.

Get in touch!

Training & Free Webinars for Property Professionals:

Would you like to keep up to date with the latest in real estate law? Davitt Jones Bould offers legal training tailored to your organisation’s needs, delivered in person across the UK or remotely. We also run free monthly webinars through for surveyors, solicitors, and property professionals across sectors. To sign up or learn more, visit our events page here or email djb.events@djblaw.co.uk for information and booking.

This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or professional advice. No liability is accepted by Davitt Jones Bould for any reliance placed on its content.

Get in touch!