15 September 2026
1954 Act Consultation – Dispute Resolution
In the eleventh instalment of our deep dive into the Law Commission’s second consultation on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the “1954 Act”), we consider proposals on the way that disputes are determined by the court.
If the landlord and tenant are unable to agree an outcome, whether that be on the terms of a renewal lease, or whether a tenancy should end because the landlord opposes renewal on one or more of the statutory grounds, it is for the court to determine that outcome.
The current system
Almost all cases are currently dealt with in the county courts, but it has long been a concern of practitioners that the County Court system cannot cope with the stresses and demands of the volume of cases that the 1954 Act generates. Only very complex or high value cases are considered by the High Court, which is a very small proportion.
The length of court proceedings (often taking well over a year to reach a conclusion at trial), and the inconsistency and unpredictability of delays in the county courts, makes progressing and advising on 1954 Act cases challenging, and all too often thwarts the endeavours of the parties to determine cases efficiently.
It is generally felt that simpler unopposed cases could be dealt with more swiftly, and without much of the procedural intricacies (and delay) that may be necessary in complex cases.
Potential alternatives
The Law Commission has explored alternative routes to reform, with each option balancing relative advantages and disadvantages:
Option 1 – making greater use of the High Court to deal with higher value and more complex disputes
- Access to judicial expertise for complex or valuable cases
- Decisions are reported and create legal precedent
- There would still be a large volume (and likely a majority) of cases in the County Court, and therefore it is not clear whether there would be any meaningful change to reduce costs and delays
- The judge would not be a property professional
Option 2 – transferring all disputes to the tribunal.
- Potential for shorter timelines to trial, at a lower cost
- Cases could be heard by a judge and a property professional (such as a valuer)
- All cases could be dealt with by the tribunal, not across the High Court and County Court
- Might not be as well suited for complex opposed cases, that may require large amounts of evidence
- Decisions are not widely reported and do not create legal precedent
Option 3 – splitting the jurisdiction for disputes between the court and the tribunal, with some disputes remaining in the court system and some being transferred to the tribunal.
- May allow claims to benefit from the strengths of different forums, ie by having unopposed claims in the tribunal and opposed claims in court
- Potential to reduce caseload for each forum
- Potential procedural complexity and confusion of separate systems
Other proposals
The Law Commission is also seeking views on other possible ways to make the resolution of disputes under the 1954 Act more efficient:
- Whether pre-action protocols (the steps parties must work through to try to resolve their dispute before proceeding to court) should be developed for opposed and unopposed cases;
- Whether there should be standardised case management directions for opposed and unopposed cases;
- Whether there should be more specific and prescribed costs sanctions to encourage settlement (through the application of “Part 36” offers);
- Whether parties should have the option or right to refer their dispute to non-determinative alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such as mediation or early neutral evaluation;
- Whether there should be greater encouragement to use ADR, or greater sanction for refusing to engage in ADR.
Discussion
The options explored by the Law Commission in this area represent potentially significant change. They do not require only minor tweaks or adjustments to the current law, as we have seen elsewhere in the consultation, but substantive and possibly transformative changes to procedure and court rules.
The options aim to comprehensively address the concerns and difficulties that parties and their advisors face on a regular basis, by looking at the procedural rules and the forums in which cases are decided.
Any such changes will require a thorough, detailed and complex review of the way the current procedure works, but it is clear that the Law Commission has identified that such significant reform may be what is required.
Practitioners will welcome changes towards enabling the efficient resolution of simpler cases, while retaining the expertise and structure of the court system when complexities demand.
In our next article, we will be exploring the Commission’s proposals on the registration gap.
Consultees are invited to respond by 16 September 2026.
Subscribe to our latest insights by topic here.
Tom Mills
Senior Associate, Real Estate Disputes
