Little v Courage Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Stephen Brown P,Kennedy,Millett L Jj |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 21 December 1995 |
Court of Appeal
Before Sir Stephen Brown, President, Lord Justice Kennedy and Lord Justice Millett
Lease - option to renew - condition need not be fulfilled
A condition precedent in a covenant to grant a new lease that the parties should agree on a new business plan and a new business agreement did not need to be satisfied where the landlord subsequently decided that the agreement and plan were not required.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment allowing the appeal of the plaintiff, James Leslie Little, the tenant of a public house, against the judgment of Mr Justice Ferris in the Chancery Division deciding a preliminary point in favour of the defendant, Courage Ltd (The Times January 19, 1994).
Mr Nicholas Chambers, QC and Mr Mark Brealey for Mr Little; Mr Kim Lewison, QC and Mr Martin Rodger for Courage.
LORD JUSTICE MILLETT said that Mr Little had become the tenant of a public house in 1986. Courage had been his landlord. The lease was for five years and expired in 1991.
It contained an option to renew for a further five years. Mr Little had attempted to exercise that option. Courage had declined to grant him a further lease and Mr Little had brought proceedings for specific performance.
The case was of considerable importance, since Mr Little's lease was in the standard form employed by Courage and there were many other cases where a similar issue arose. Mr Justice Ferris had decided the preliminary issue in favour of Courage and dismissed the action. He said that he reached his conclusion with a good deal of regret since it meant that the parties' evident intention that Mr Little should have an effective right of renewal had been frustrated.
Clause 26(1) of the lease contained the option to renew on certain conditions. For the purposes of the preliminary issue it had been accepted that the conditions specified were satisfied except condition (c): "the lessee shall have agreed with the company a further business plan and a further business agreement".
No attempt had been made to agree either a further business plan or a further business agreement. Courage had asserted that, by reason of clause 26(1)(c), clause 26 of the lease was void for uncertainty and/or unenforceable in law.
As a preliminary issue Mr Justice Ferris had considered whether Courage, having refused to agree or to offer to enter into a new business agreement or a new business plan, was entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Compagnie Noga d'Importation et d'Exportation SA v Abacha (No 3) [QBD (Comm)]
...... Lake v LakeELR [1955] P 336. Little v Courage LtdUNK (1994) 70 P & C R 469. Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v CooperELR [1941] AC 108. ......
-
Karim Frederick Dhanani v Serge Crasnianski
...obligation to do one's best to agree is no different from an undertaking to agree and cannot give rise to an enforceable obligation; see Little v Courage [1995] CLC 164 at p. 169 per Millet LJ. Intention to create legal relations 75 I shall consider this question first and separately from t......
- Courage Ltd v Crehan (Case C-453/99)
-
Jet2.com Ltd v Blackpool Airport Ltd
...inherent in the concept of "reasonable endeavours" rather than the objective towards which the endeavours were directed. In Little v Courage Ltd (1995) 70 P & CR 469 it was the objective itself that was uncertain. The lease in that case contained an option to renew which was conditional on ......
-
Land Law
...option were satisfied, the defendant had no entitlement to a new lease from the plaintiff. Further, having regard to Little v Courage Ltd[1995] CLC 164at 167–168, the plaintiff had, inter alia, no obligation to remind the defendant in advance of the contractual significance of the 30 Novemb......