The landlord appealed against refusal of forfeiture for breaches of the lease. A covenant provided against use for immoral purposes, and the sub-tenant had been found to be running a brothel. The tenant said that he had been concerned of an action for defamation if he had acted before receiving formal confirmation of the allegation from the police. The landlord also complained of a non-consented alienation of part of the premises.
Held: The appeal was refused, though on a different basis. Costs were substantially ordered in favour of the landlord. The judge’s finding that the tenant had been justified in waiting three months before acting was not correct. The tenant had duties under the lease and did not comply with them. As to the alienation, the occupiers had been been sharing the accomodation in breach of the covenant and were not just managing the business. They were in breach, though this was remediable. The notices were valid. Any stigma from the use appeared to have been remedied on the reletting, and the judge’s findings on this were significant and not to be set aside by the exercising a discretion anew. As to the sharing of occupation that also had been remedied. A forfeiture would provide an unearned windfall to the landlords and a disproportionate financial penalty on the tenants. Relief against forfeiture was granted.
Lloyd, Elias, Black LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1211, [2011] L and TR 6, [2011] 1 P and CR DG7
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Glass v Kencakes 1966
The court considered the ability of a tenant to obtain relief from forfeiture for illegal or immoral use where the tenant was not aware of the breach by his sub-tenant until he received the section 146 notice. Where the tenant took prompt action to . .
Cited – Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar (No 2) CA 20-Jun-1972
Right to forfeit waived by rent demand
The landlords’ managing agents learned that the tenant had been convicted of keeping a brothel at the premises and served a section 146 notice intending to forfeit the tenancy. He told his staff and instructed them not to demand or accept rent. But . .
Cited – British Petroleum Pension Trust v Behrendt CA 1985
The tenant had been held by the judge to have known of the use by his sub-tenant of the premises as a brothel, or at best to have shut his eyes deliberately to it.
Held: Although the subtenant had been removed, the breach was not remediable . .
Cited – Shah and Another v Standard Chartered Bank CA 2-Apr-1998
The plaintiffs appealed against refusal of orders striking out the defences of justification to their libel action.
Held: The words complained of bore an accusation of money laundering. A plea of justification based upon a reasonable belief in . .
Cited – Ropemaker Properties Limited v Noonhaven Limited 1989
The tenants, by being willing to make prostitutes available to customers from the premises, were in a breach of a user covenant which prohibited the use of the premises otherwise than as ‘a high class restaurant/nightclub’. However the fact that the . .
Cited – Egerton v Jones CA 1939
A mortgagee of a leasehold interest claimed that he should have been given notice of a section 146 notice served on the lessee.
Held: A mortgagee by subdemise is always at the risk of a lessor obtaining re-entry for breach of covenant without . .
Cited – Grangeside Properties v Collingwood Securities 1964
Where a forfeiture may have been technically justified, but the landlord had opposed relief unsuccessfully, costs might be ordered against the landlord. The normal practice was otherwise to require payment on the common fund or solicitor and client . .
Cited – Ropemaker Properties Limited v Noonhaven Limited 1989
The tenants, by being willing to make prostitutes available to customers from the premises, were in a breach of a user covenant which prohibited the use of the premises otherwise than as ‘a high class restaurant/nightclub’. However the fact that the . .
Cited – Hamilton and Another v Clifford QBD 22-Jun-2004
The claimants sought damages for slander and libel against the defendant. The offending words were in material broadcast on television about allegations (later shown to be untrue) of sexual misconduct against the claimants. . .
Cited – Billson and Others v Residential Tenancies Ltd HL 12-Dec-1991
Relief from forfeiture was available against a landlord who had peaceably re-entered property subject to a tenancy without a court order. Such a landlord was still ‘proceeding’ to enforce his rights of forfeiture until he obtained a judgment for . .
Cited – Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd and Others (No 2) CA 11-Jul-2001
The tenant had allowed an equitable charge over his lease in favour of a creditor. The lease was forfeited by peaceable re-entry for non-payment of rent, and the chargee sought relief from forfeiture. A new tenancy had been granted in the mean-time. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.425593