The court was asked as to the legal effect of a purported peaceable re-entry and forfeiture of a lease by a purchaser of the reversion prior to registration of the purchaser as proprietor at HM Land Registry.
Held: The appeal was denied. What had been ‘a forfeiture by estoppel’ between Rother and the Defendants was ‘fed’ and became a full legal forfeiture valid as against the world.
Judges:
Lightman J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 14 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Mentioned – Thomas v Thomas 1835
A unity of possession of the land in and of the land in qua an easement exists, does not extinguish but only suspends the easement, where the party is seised in fee of the one parcel , and possessed for the residue of a term of the other. – Where a . .
Cited – G S Fashions Ltd v B and Q Plc ChD 26-Oct-1994
The landlord’s forfeiture of a lease, having once been accepted by the tenant, the landlord could not then withdraw the forfeiture against the tenant’s wishes. He had raised an estoppel precluding him from denying that he had forfeited the lease. . .
Cited – Farrow v Orttewell CA 1933
A purchaser of the freehold reversion on a lease who prior to registration of his title served a notice to quit on the tenant, on which the tenant acted, was estopped from denying that the notice was valid on the ground of his lack of title when it . .
Cited – In the Goods of McLean 1950
The presumption of regularity raises a probability that a will has been duly attested. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant, Registered Land
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.192046