In the case Bijlani v Medical Express (London) Ltd [2024] EWHC 2246 (KB), the High Court addressed the issue of a dental practitioner’s breach of a commercial lease.
Dr. Bijlani, a dentist, leased a room on Harley Street, London, which was intended to be used for “legitimate surgical dental procedures” by a registered practitioner. However, in 2021, her registration with the General Dental Council (‘GDC’) was suspended and she continued to provide Botox treatments in the premises.
The court found that while administering Botox does not require GDC registration, it still violated the terms of her lease, which required full registration with the GDC. The breach related to the permitted use of the premises and the reputational risks it posed, particularly in a prestigious medical area like Harley Street. The landlord sought forfeiture of the lease, and although Dr. Bijlani argued for relief from forfeiture, the court ultimately ruled that a breach had occurred.
The court granted limited relief, permitting Dr. Bijlani to remain in the premises under the condition that she would not use it until her suspension was lifted.
The significance of this case lies in its exploration of forfeiture proceedings in commercial lease disputes, particularly focusing on breaches that are not related to rent. This case provides critical guidance on how the courts interpret user covenants in leases, specifically in medical contexts.
This case highlights the landlord’s right to forfeit the lease for breaches other than non-payment of rent. The landlord exercised this right after Dr. Bijlani breached the user clause by continuing to use the premises while suspended. The court upheld the decision, demonstrating that such breaches can lead to forfeiture, even if rent is being paid on time.
The court’s decision to deny full relief from forfeiture, while permitting Dr. Bijlani to retain the premises without using it until her suspension was lifted, demonstrates the court carrying out a balancing act; it serves as a precedent for how courts might balance tenants’ rights and landlords’ interests in similar cases.
It demonstrates that relief from forfeiture is discretionary based on the severity of the breach and the landlord’s interest in maintaining the reputation of a medical property.
The case also underlines the importance of the landlord’s reputation and interests, particularly in a prestigious area like Harley Street. The court found that the user covenant was in place to protect the high medical standards and reputation of the property, which was central to the landlord’s business interests.
If you want to know more or want to speak to a member of our team, please get in touch below or call us on 01702 338338.
