The landlord sought to forfeit the lease for breach of a repairing covenant. The mortgagee had gone into possession, and having received the s146 notice, had served a counter-notice under the 1938 Act. The mortgagee having assigned the lease to the respondent, and the landlord seeking forfeiture, the respondent argued that the Landlord was obliged, following the counter-notice, first to seek the consent of the court.
Held: The mortgagee’s interest was less than that of the lessee, and he was not able to serve a counter-notice. Mortgagee’s of leasehold properties must know of the risk, and ensure that the property was repaired by the tenant. Since the counter-notice was invalid, the landlord did not require permission from the court to forfeit the lease.
References: Times 28-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1830, [2003] 1 All ER 509, [2003] 2 WLR 495, [2003] 1 P and CR D36, [2003] 2 P and CR 300, [2003] QB 983
Links: Bailii
Judges: Kay, Arden LJJ
Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 146, Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938 1(3)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Church Commissioners for England v Ve-Ri-Best Manfacturing Co Ltd 1956 ([1957] 1 QB 238, [1956] 3 WLR 990, 100 Sol Jo 875)
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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.178619
