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 use had already ended, and the damage to the landlord had been reduced, and the substantial loss caused to the tenants, meant that forfeiture was refused.
Millett J said: ‘The mere fact that the breach in question involves immoral user does not in itself preclude the court from granting relief . . It will, however, be only in the rarest and most exceptional circumstances that the court will grant relief in such a case, particularly where the breach of covenant has been both wilful and serious. The defendants’ breaches in the present case were of the utmost gravity; they represented a deliberate and continuing disregard of their obligations under the lease. Despite the weighty considerations which tell against the granting of relief, however, I have come to the conclusion that this is an exceptional case in which relief should be granted.’
Judges:
Millett J
Citations:
[1989] 2 EGLR 50
Cited by:
Cited – Patel and Another v K and J Restaurants Ltd and Another CA 28-Oct-2010
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 . .
Cited – Patel and Another v K and J Restaurants Ltd and Another CA 28-Oct-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.245839