In a pivotal decision, the High Court has reaffirmed the strength of landlords’ rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the 1954 Act), particularly concerning Ground G. Ground G is one of the most common reasons used by landlords to oppose the grant of a new tenancy. It allows a landlord to regain possession of a property if they intend to occupy it for their own business use. The case of MVL Properties (2017) Ltd v The Leadmill Ltd [2025] EWHC 349 (Ch), centred on the iconic Sheffield music venue The Leadmill, and highlights that there can be significant implications for protected tenants in contested lease renewals.

Background

The Leadmill, a renowned music venue since 1982, operated under a lease protected by the 1954 Act. This legislation gives tenants occupying premises for business purposes security of tenure by providing them with a statutory right to a new lease when their current lease ends, subject to a small number of exceptions.

The landlord, MVL Properties (2017) Ltd (MVL17), sought possession of the premises under Ground G, asserting that it had a genuine intention to occupy the premises for its own business purposes. MVL17 planned to refurbish and operate the venue as part of its “Electric” brand, which includes other notable UK venues.

Tenant’s Opposition

The Leadmill Ltd contested the claim, arguing that the landlord’s intention was not genuine, and that the venue’s unique character and historical significance warranted its continued operation under existing management. Additionally, the tenant raised concerns about potential human rights violations, citing Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (A1P1). They argued that the landlord’s actions would unlawfully deprive them of their business goodwill, which was equivalent to their possession of the property.

Court’s Analysis

The High Court meticulously examined the landlord’s intentions, financial capability, and proposed plans. It concluded that MVL17 demonstrated a “firm and settled intention” to occupy the premises for its own business purposes. The court was satisfied with the landlord’s evidence, including (but not limited to) detailed refurbishment plans, a proven history of operating other music venues, and sufficient financial resources—indicating a genuine commitment to the proposed business venture.

Regarding the human rights argument, the court acknowledged that goodwill could be considered a “possession” under A1P1. However, it emphasised that the tenant failed to provide concrete evidence of such goodwill. Even if goodwill had been established, the court held that the landlord’s actions did not constitute an unlawful deprivation, as the 1954 Act permits landlords to regain possession under specific grounds, including Ground G.

Implications

This ruling emphasises the importance of landlords presenting clear, genuine intentions when seeking possession under Ground G. It also highlights that tenants cannot rely solely on the historical or cultural significance of a venue to secure a new tenancy in contested lease renewals. The decision reinforces the balance the 1954 Act aims to strike between protecting tenants and enabling landlords to regain possession of their properties.

For landlords, the case serves as a precedent demonstrating that well-substantiated plans and intentions can successfully counter a tenant’s opposition. For tenants, it is a reminder of the necessity to provide compelling evidence when challenging a landlord’s claim under Ground G. The consequences of failing to do so could lead to tenants having to close their business and vacate the premises.

Conclusion

The MVL Properties v The Leadmill case is a landmark decision that clarifies the application of Ground G under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. It emphasises that genuine landlord intentions, supported by concrete plans and financial capability, can prevail over tenant objections—even in cases involving culturally significant properties. This ruling will undoubtedly influence future contested lease renewals, and the strategies employed by both landlords and tenants.

If you would like to discuss the points raised above, please contact Sarah Benjamin at sarah.benjamin@haroldbenjamin.com