Contested 1954 Act renewals – summary judgment?

In Somerfield Stores Ltd v Spring (Sutton Coldfield) Ltd [2010] EWHC 2084 (Ch) the High Court rejects the use of summary judgment applications as a way of forcing the landlord’s hand on an opposed 1954 Act application for lease renewal. Where a landlord opposes lease renewal on the basis of ground (f) (redevelopment), the landlord has to show, at trial, that he has formed the necessary firm subjective intention to redevelop, and that he has a reasonable prospect of being able to commence redevelopment on or within a short period of regaining possession. The question in this case was whether the tenant could catch the landlord out by applying for summary judgment, thereby bringing forward the “trial” date, in the hope that the landlord may be unable, at that time, to demonstrate a sufficient intention. The judge, HHJ David Cooke, held that such an application did not bring forward the date upon which the landlord was required to prove its intention. He said “much the preferable view is that the date of the hearing at which the necessary intention must be shown to exist is always the date of the substantive trial of the landlord's ground of objection.” The application for summary judgment was therefore dismissed. To allow such an application to bring forward the date for proof of intention “would introduce an unnecessary opportunity for the adoption of artificial tactics in an area of litigation which is, in my experience, already regarded by commercial parties as a costly tactical adjunct to their negotiations.”