Att fortsätta eller lägga ned: Lokalhyresgästens rätt till ersättning vid obefogad uppsägning

As a rule, when renting non-residential premises the commercial tenant enjoys a so called indirect protected tenancy. This protection gives the tenant a certain right to be financially compensated according to Chapter 12 paragraph 58 b in the Tenancy Act, since the tenant cannot force an extension of the tenancy agreement against the will of the landlord. The compensation is paid partly in the form of a standard or minimum compensation which does not require the tenant having suffered an economic loss due to the termination of the agreement. If the tenant has actually suffered, and can prove, a loss exceeding the minimum amount, additional compensation shall be paid by the landlord in the form of damages. The landlord is not liable to pay compensation if the termination is justified, i.e. the reason for terminating the tenancy is relevant. The Tenancy Act indicates a variety of situations for the landlord to use, which gives the landlord a relatively wide range of acceptable reasons. If the termination of the tenancy is due to demolition or rebuilding, the landlord is often not liable to compensate the tenant as long as the landlord has provided information on acceptable alternative premises. Other acceptable reasons are e.g. that the tenant has broken certain contractual obligations or that the landlord needs the premises at the behest of another tenant which has greater financial importance to the landlord. If the landlord’s termination is not justified The Tenancy Act gives the tenant a right to compensation. The loss suffered due to the termination varies depending on the consequences of the termination. The aim of this work has been, among other things, to seek guidance on how to determine if a commercial tenant has been forced to close down his business as a result of the termination, or can be considered to have continued the business elsewhere. There are no fundamental guidelines to be found in the traditional sources of law. A number of court decisions have been reviewed in an attempt to find patterns or tendencies of interest when discussing the main questions of this work. Compensation disputes are common and have generated a relatively large amount of lower court cases. However, the circumstances often differ to a considerable extent and it has not been possible to determine with certainty any fundamental guidelines as to whether the tenant has been forced to closed down his business or can be considered to have continued the business. Nevertheless, the work has led to an interesting discussion in light of the cases where the issue has actually been raised in a decisive way.