References: [1963] 1 QB 887, [1963] 1 All ER 500
Coram: Sachs J
Ratio: To demand rent may waive a right to forfeiture. Sachs J said: ‘When one looks at the authorities, it is, however, clear that a demand can operate as a waiver in the same way as an acceptance.’ Also the landlord’s own behaviour can be taken into account when deciding whether to grant relief against forfeiture.
A waiver occurs even where the demand or acceptance of rent was made without prejudice or under protest that it was not to be construed as a waiver.
Accepting rent can be a waiver of the right to terminate even if the landlord purports to accept the rent, ‘without prejudice’. Sachs J said: ”As both demand and acceptance respectively are in law merely different forms of a notification by a landlord of election not to avoid or forfeit the Lease, to my mind no distinction can nowadays be drawn between them in relation to a question whether the label ‘Without Prejudice’ affects their quality as an election. There is no reason of principle why a right of forfeiture arising from a failure to pay rent, cannot be waived in exactly the same way as a right of forfeiture arising from a breach of any other covenant in the Lease. In London and County (A&D) Ltd v Wilfred Sportsman Ltd [1971] 1 Ch 764, at 786 Russell LJ (with whom Lord Donovan and Megaw LJ agreed) said: ‘The other argument put forward was that there can never be waiver of forfeiture for non-payment of rent by recognition of the continued existence of the Lease because, as has often been said, a right of re-entry for non-payment of rent is a mere security for the payment. I am not aware of any authority for this proposition, and I see no justification in principle for making this distinction between a default in an obligation to pay rent and any other obligation. Of course, rent may be demanded after the forfeiture days are passed, and, indeed, part payment accepted on account without waiving the forfeiture; this does not recognise the continued existence of the Lease beyond the date when that rent was payable. I refer in this connection also to the passage in Shepherd v Berger [1892] 1 QB 597, 599, which appears to me inconsistent with the proposition advanced.”
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Expert Clothing Service & Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd CA ([1986] 1 Ch 340, [1985] 2 All ER 998, [1987] 1 EGLR 65)
Landlords took possession after a successful, at first instance, forfeiture claim. The tenant succeeded on appeal and then brought a claim for the wrong of breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
Held: The lease had been in existence all . . - Cited – Ultraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD (Bailii, [2005] EWHC 1638 (Ch))
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . . - Cited – Central Estates (Belgravia) Ltd v Woolgar (No 2) CA ([1972] 1 WLR 1048, Bailii, [1972] EWCA Civ 4, (1972) 24 P & CR 103, [1972] 3 All ER 610)
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 19-Aug-16
Ref: 230299