Paul Alexander Constantine v Aaron Spencer Bird

Decision date: 6 August 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKUT 258 (LC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This appeal concerned whether a 2017 assured tenancy clause granting a "tenant option to renew for further 12 months at the same rent" created a perpetually renewable tenancy so that no statutory periodic tenancy arose and the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) lacked jurisdiction to fix market rent. The Upper Tribunal held the clause was ambiguous and did not contain the unequivocal wording needed to create perpetual renewal; it gave only a single one-year renewal, after which a statutory periodic tenancy arose and the FTT properly determined market rent. The appeal was dismissed.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

A clause will only create a perpetually renewable tenancy if it uses unequivocal wording to that effect; where a renewal option is reasonably capable of being limited to a single further term, the statutory periodic tenancy provisions will apply once that term expires and the FTT may determine market rent under s.13.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

Comments in the judgment indicate that a landlord's acceptance of annual rent payments or tolerance of continued occupation does not necessarily establish a perpetual renewal right, and that express drafting specifying inclusion or exclusion of a renewal option in any renewed tenancy will determine whether renewal is perpetual; equivocal or silent drafting invites a restrictive construction.

Warning

some formatting artifacts in the source text, but the issues and findings are clear.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML