Sector Focus


Legal Commercial tenants warned over leases


Commercial tenants should take care they are not giving up their right to renew at the end of the term of rental leases, Thursfields Solicitors has warned. The advice from the Midlands law


firm comes after a recent case where a court ruled that The Fragrance Store’s six leases had been validly subjected to ‘contracting out’ procedures by its landlords. The case hinged on the Landlord


& Tenant Act 1954 which provides tenants of business premises with security of tenure when a lease comes to an end, unless the landlord and tenant agree the tenant will not have a statutory right to a renewal – known as contracting out. Pam Virdee, a solicitor in the


commercial property team at Thursfields’ Birmingham office, said: “The Fragrance Shop, also known as TFS Stores, entered into six leases for retail outlets centres with different landlords, and on each occasion TFS agreed to contract out of the security of tenure provisions. “When the leases came to an


end the landlords did not want to renew, and at that stage TFS tried to argue that the contracting out procedures had not been carried out properly.”


She said that TFS had argued


Perfume wars: Pam Virdee


that: its solicitors did not have authority to receive contracting out notices from the landlord; the individuals who made the declarations on its behalf did not have the authority to do so; and its declarations had not been completed fully.


‘When the leases came to an end the landlords did not want to renew’


However, she explained that the


court concluded that all six leases had been validly contracted out and that the tenant was not entitled to a statutory right to renew any of them. The case of TFS Stores Limited v


BMG (Ashford) Limited and others came after the landlords had decided to let all six retail spaces to The Perfume Shop, a direct competitor of TFS. Ms Virdee added: “This case


serves as a stark reminder to tenants to make sure they want to contract out of the protection afforded by the 1954 Act before entering into a lease, or else they could risk facing undesirable consequences.”


76 CHAMBERLINK October 2019


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92