In Star Pubs Trading Limited v Gunmakers Arms (Essex) LLP [2026], the Central London County Court has issued its (non-binding) decision that a pub company’s management services agreement model gave it sufficient control over the business to successfully establish occupation of the premises for the purposes of section 30(1)(g) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the “1954 Act”).

Star Pubs Trading Limited (“Star”), a major pub company, served a section 25 notice opposing the grant of a new tenancy on the basis that it intended to occupy the pub premises for its own business, albeit through a third party operator company that would manage the pub business on Star’s behalf pursuant to a management services agreement (the “MSA”).

Section 23 of the 1954 Act sets the qualifying conditions for a tenant’s security of tenure under a protected lease, by requiring the tenant to occupy the premises for the purposes of a business carried on by it. The court in Star Pubs held that the legal test under section 23 also applies to a landlord that wishes to oppose renewal of the tenant’s protected lease under section 30(1)(g) of the 1954 Act, which requires the landlord to demonstrate that it “intends to occupy the holding for the purposes…of a business to be carried on by him therein”. 

The decisive factor was the striking degree of control Star would retain. Under the MSA, Star, rather than the operator, entered into all the contracts involved in running the business. This included the supply of all food and drink, with the exception of staff contracts. Star fixed all prices at which products were sold to customers, and the operator had no authority to negotiate them. Star's detailed operational manual governed virtually every aspect of how the pub was to be managed, from opening hours to food service times. All marketing activities were determined and paid for by Star, and the operator was not to provide its own promotional material without Star's prior approval.

The court also noted the absence of clauses typically indicative of a tenancy, such as a covenant to pay a periodic sum for occupation, or any real limitation on Star’s access to the premises. The repair and maintenance obligations also rested with Star, rather than the operator.

The court rejected the tenant’s argument that the operator’s physical presence at the premises through its staff was fatal to the landlord’s case, holding instead that the operator occupied on behalf of Star as its agent. As a result, the tenancy was terminated without the grant of a new tenancy.

Key takeaways

• Landlords using management agreement structures (particularly pub companies, leisure operators and others who use such structures) can take comfort that a well-drafted agreement retaining a high degree of control over the business will be helpful to recovering possession on the own occupation ground.
• Key control indicators are likely to include a combination of the owner: entering into all operational contracts, fixing prices, controlling marketing, maintaining detailed operational manuals, and retaining repair obligations.
• The absence of a landlord’s physical on-site presence will not, of itself, defeat an own occupation claim where the operator is shown to occupy as the landlord’s agent.
• Tenants should be aware that management agreement structures increasingly enable landlords to establish ground (g) opposition, even where the landlord has no personnel physically present at the premises.