Click the case name for better results:

Halliard Property Co Ltd v Jack Segal Ltd: 1978

The court considered a proviso for re-entry that: ‘forfeiture on the bankruptcy of the lessee is considered as a case of breach of condition.’ Held: It was clearly a condition rather than a mere covenant of the original protected tenancy that the tenant should not become a bankrupt and this condition had been broken by … Continue reading Halliard Property Co Ltd v Jack Segal Ltd: 1978

Church Commissioners for England v Ve-Ri-Best Manfacturing Co Ltd: 1956

The lease provided for re-entry for breach of covenant. The landlord served a notice requiring repairs and payment of compensation on both the tenant and the mortgagee. The mortgagees served a counter-notice, and the landlord proceeded against the tenant alone. The tenant argued that the counter-notice operated to trigger the requirement for proceedings to begin … Continue reading Church Commissioners for England v Ve-Ri-Best Manfacturing Co Ltd: 1956

Laav Re 146 Burges Road: UTLC 10 Sep 2015

UTLC RESTRICTIVE COVENANT – discharge – modification – proposed development of second house on application land – whether restrictions obsolete under ground (a) – change of character of neighbourhood – grounds (aa) and (c) – whether compensation payable to original covenantee under section 84(1)(ii) – application to modify covenants granted under ground (aa) – Law … Continue reading Laav Re 146 Burges Road: UTLC 10 Sep 2015

Courtney Lodge Management Ltd v Blake and Others: CA 1 Jul 2004

The tenant appealed forfeiture proceedings for the failure sof subtenants to repair the property. Held: Section 146 notices which were to lead to forfeiture were required to give a reasonable time to comply with the notice. Judges: Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Chadwick, Sedley LJJ Citations: Times 15-Jul-2004, [2004] EWCA Civ 975 Links: Bailii Statutes: Law … Continue reading Courtney Lodge Management Ltd v Blake and Others: CA 1 Jul 2004

Akici v LR Butlin Ltd: CA 2 Nov 2005

The tenant appealed against forfeiture of his lease for breach of a qualified covenant against assignment. It was said that the tenant had attempted to hide from the landlord the assignment of the premises to his company or its shared occupation. The judge had found a sharing of occupation. Held: The tenant’s appeal succeeded. The … Continue reading Akici v LR Butlin Ltd: CA 2 Nov 2005

Forcelux Ltd, Re an Appeal Against A Decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal: LT 20 Jan 2004

LT Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s.18 – Law of Property Act 1925 s.146 – Housing Act 1996 ss.81 and 82 – jurisdiction of LVT — covenant to pay costs in preparing notices under s.146 – Meaning of ‘service charge’ — landlord’s costs of management — Forcelux v Sweetman not followed Citations: [2004] EWLands LRX … Continue reading Forcelux Ltd, Re an Appeal Against A Decision of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal: LT 20 Jan 2004

Escalus Properties Ltd v Robinson and Others; Same v Dennis and Others Etc: CA 11 May 1995

Mortgagee is entitled to relief against forfeiture retrospectively. Sub-tenants and mortgagees can also apply for relief under s 146(2). Citations: Gazette 11-May-1995, [1996] QB 231 Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 146(2) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Landlord and Tenant Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.80364

Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd and Others (1): CA 18 Jan 2001

An equitable charge of a lease has standing to apply to court for relief from forfeiture for non-payment of rent, where the tenant did not himself seek relief, but only indirectly on the basis that the lessee and chargor has a duty to take reasonable steps to preserve the charge’s security. The tenant stands in … Continue reading Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd and Others (1): CA 18 Jan 2001

Rugby School (Governors) v Tannahill: CA 1935

The tenant had been convicted of permitting the premises in Great Ormond Street to be used for habitual prostitution. The landlord served a notice under section 146 which did not provide for the possibility of the breach being remedied. The evidence showed that the tenant had been knowingly and actively permitting the house to be … Continue reading Rugby School (Governors) v Tannahill: CA 1935

Barrett v Robinson: UTLC 29 Jul 2014

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – administration charges – covenant to pay costs of proceedings – whether costs incurred ‘in or in contemplation of’ proceedings under s.146, Law of Property Act 1925 – Freeholders of 69 Marina v Oram considered – s.81, Housing Act 1996 – ss.167-169, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 – appeal allowed … Continue reading Barrett v Robinson: UTLC 29 Jul 2014

Agricullo Ltd v Yorkshire Housing Ltd: CA 16 Mar 2010

The landlord sought leave to appeal against a refusal to award it costs associated with the service of a section 146 notice on the tenant. The tenant had covenanted to repair, and to indemnify the landlord against expenses of such notices. The tenant had claimed the benefit of having given a notice under the 1938 … Continue reading Agricullo Ltd v Yorkshire Housing Ltd: CA 16 Mar 2010

First Penthouse Limited/Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited v Channel Hotels and Properties (UK) Limited/Fahad Al Tamimi First Penthouse Limited Varlet International Limited Ruth Gary Orbach Quallvile Limited Norval Holdings Limited: ChD 14 Nov 2003

Several transactions had taken place with regard to a lease of a roof void, which was to be developed for penthouses. The lease had been charged to secure funding. The development did not proceed to schedule, and a s146 notice was served. It was . .

Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council: HL 8 Nov 2001

A lease contained a covenant against assignment without the Landlord’s consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The tenant asserted, pace Killick, that the landlord could not refuse consent on the grounds that the proposed tenant might not comply with the terms of the lease, and that the building obligation operated as a use … Continue reading Ashworth Frazer Limited v Gloucester City Council: HL 8 Nov 2001

Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50604878: ICO 9 May 2016

ICO The complainant has made a number of requests to the London Borough of Southwark (the Council) for information broadly relating to the serving of section 146 notices in accordance with the Law of Property Act 1925. The present notice concerns six of the requests. With regard to five of the requests (requests 1, 5 … Continue reading Southwark Council (Local Government (District Council)) FS50604878: ICO 9 May 2016

Willens v Influential Consultants Ltd: UTLC 7 May 2015

UTLC LANDLORD AND TENANT – Administration Charges – whether legal expenses incurred in contemplation of proceedings under section 146, Law of Property Act 1925 – whether appeal compromised on payment of service charge arrears by third party mortgagee – appeal dismissed [2015] UKUT 362 (LC) Bailii Property Act 1925 146 England and Wales Landlord and … Continue reading Willens v Influential Consultants Ltd: UTLC 7 May 2015

Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another: ComC 21 Jan 2011

The defendants sought to set aside orders allowing the claimants to serve proceedings alleging repudiation of a charterparty in turn allowing a claim against the defendants under a guarantee. The defendant said the guarantee was unenforceable under the 1677 Act not being in writing and signed. Held: There was no limit to the number of … Continue reading Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd and Another: ComC 21 Jan 2011

Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd: CA 1975

“Subject to Contract” not to be diluted ‘subject to contract’ proposals remain in negotiation until a formal contract is executed. Lord Denning MR said: ‘for over a hundred years, the courts have held that the effect of the words ‘subject to contract’ is that the matter remains in negotiation until a formal contract is executed’ … Continue reading Tiverton Estates Ltd v Wearwell Ltd: CA 1975

Shaws (EAL) Ltd v Pennycook: CA 2 Feb 2004

Tenant’s First Notice to terminate, stood The landlord served a notice to terminate the business lease. The tenant first served a notice to say that it would not seek a new lease, but then, and still within the time limit, it served a second counter-notice seeking a new tenancy. The landlord sought to rely upon … Continue reading Shaws (EAL) Ltd v Pennycook: CA 2 Feb 2004