Commerical Landlord Problem Flashcards
(12 cards)
What is the main legal issue in Niall O’Leary’s case?
Whether a two-month caretaker agreement interrupted his continuous occupation under section 13(1)(a) of the 1980 Act.
What does section 13(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant (Amendment) Act 1980 require?
Five years of continuous occupation of a tenement for the purpose of carrying on a bona fide business.
What is a “tenement” under the 1980 Act?
Land or buildings used for business, held under lease, contract, or statutory tenancy — not for temporary convenience.
What section allows for temporary breaks in occupation to be disregarded?
Section 13(2) of the 1980 Act.
What happened during Niall’s caretaker agreement period?
He retained exclusive use of the premises for two months and continued business activity.
What was the ruling in Gatien Motor Co?
A caretaker agreement broke continuity because the tenant lost legal occupation and business control.
How does Edward Lee v N1 Property affect Niall’s case?
It shows that short, reasonable breaks in occupation with ongoing business use may not destroy continuity.
Why is Niall’s caretaker period likely considered reasonable?
It lasted only two months, retained exclusive possession, and was meant to protect his business.
What factors support Niall’s continuity of occupation?
Unbroken physical presence, consistent business use, landlord cooperation, and short caretaker term.
Is Niall likely to qualify for a new tenancy?
Yes, because the caretaker period is unlikely to break his five-year continuous occupation under s.13(1)(a).
What section of the Act lists disqualifying conditions for a new tenancy?
Section 17.
Did Niall do anything that would disqualify him under section 17?
No — there is no indication of rent default, breach, surrender, or landlord redevelopment intent.
