A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Download PDF Print page
Published 1 April 2019
The recent High Court decision in WOWW Ltd & Ors v Gani & Anor [2018] EWHC 3550 (Ch) highlights the risks of failing to properly document a tenancy.
The Claimants operated a business out of premises owned by the Defendants. The Claimants alleged, amongst other things, that a periodic tenancy had arisen as a result of the conduct of the parties.
The Judge considered that there was sufficient evidence to infer that a periodic tenancy had arisen. In particular:
Because a periodic tenancy was created, it was protected by the 1954 Act.
The case underlines the importance of ensuring that all occupations are properly documented. This situation could have been easily avoided if the landlord had granted an excluded tenancy.
Bristol
+44 (0)117 918 2213
By Simon Taylor
By Stephanie Bagshaw
By Andrew Boulton, Matthew Stokes
By George Taylor, Victoria Armstrong, Lisa Geary
By Gwyneth Barton
By Heather Tomlinson
By Nick Knapman, Tom Knightley
By Sally Morris-Smith
By Gemma Leonard
By Krystal Hayes
By Mike Piggot
By Stephanie Bagshaw, Rachael Reynolds, Victoria Armstrong
By Ioan Davies, Alison Martin, Alexia Dawson
By Andrew Morgan, Lauren Hicks
By Stephanie Bagshaw, Clare Hartley
By Charlotte Coyle
By Georgina Bailey
By Rachael Reynolds, Joe Bannister, Kevin Hawthorn