Periodic Tenancies and Proprietary Estoppel: Not all smoke a

Periodic Tenancies and Proprietary Estoppel: Not all smoke and mirrors | Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner


Summary
In Smoke Club Ltd and others v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, the Upper Tribunal held that the claimants had an inferred periodic tenancy but no claim under proprietary estoppel. A lease of any kind was never agreed. However on the facts, none of the parties involved in negotiations had an objection on principle to a periodic tenancy and the tenants were clear that they would not accept a tenancy at will.
Background
The case concerned an arch beneath London Bridge railway station that operated as Cable nightclub from 2009. The nightclub operators – Smoke Club - had entered occupation of the arch on an informal basis, following discussions and with the knowledge of the freeholder and head tenant, without a formal lease or licence in place.  When Network Rail exercised its powers of compulsory purchase and took possession of the arch in May 2013 for the Thames Link project, Smoke Club (now in administration) and its creditors argued that they could claim compensation on the basis that (1)  Smoke Club had acquired a 20 year lease of the arches under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel or constructive trust, alternatively, (2) it had acquired an annual periodic tenancy of the site, with rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (1954 Act), on the basis of its occupation and payment of rent.

Related Keywords

Naomi Hoggett , Network Rail , Smoke Club , London Bridge , Thameslink , Tenant Act , Upper Tribunal , Trainee Solicitor , வலைப்பின்னல் ரயில் , புகை சங்கம் , லண்டன் பாலம் , வாடகைக்காரர் நாடகம் , மேல் தீர்ப்பாயம் , பயிற்சி வழக்குரைஞர் ,

© 2025 Vimarsana