Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Law Report: Forfeiture of lease cannot be withdrawn: G S Fashions Ltd v B & Q plc - Chancery Division (Mr Justice Lightman), 19 October 1994

Ying Hui Tan,Barrister
Friday 28 October 1994 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Where a lessor issued a writ claiming the forfeiture of a lease for breach of a covenant in the lease and the lessee by its defence accepted the forfeiture, the lessor could not thereafter question the validity of the forfeiture in order to enforce covenants in the lease.

Mr Justice Lightman dismissed the plaintiff landlord's appeal against Master Moncaster's decision, on 19 May 1994, that two leases in which the first defendant was the tenant were determined by service of the writ. Leave to appeal was granted. The landlord alleged that the tenant had assigned the lease without consent in breach of a covenant.

The landlord served a specially endorsed writ alleging that the lease had been forfeited and sought possession and mesne profits. The tenant accepted the forfeiture. On the tenant claiming that with forfeiture it was no longer bound by the rental covenants, the landlord applied for leave to amend the writ to delete the claim to forfeit.

The landlord claimed that the tenant had not parted with possession and that the landlord had made a mistake in thinking that there had been a parting of possession and the tenant had induced the mistake. The tenant applied for a declaration that the lease had been forfeited.

David Mayall (Edge & Ellison, Leicester) for the landlord; Jonathan Gaunt QC and Alistair Craig (Hepherd Winstanley & Pugh, Southampton) for the tenant.

MR JUSTICE LIGHTMAN said that a lessor who claimed that the lessee had committed a breach of covenant which triggered a right to forfeit the lease, had served the necessary notice and had not waived the right of forfeiture might (1)peaceably re-enter, take possession and thereby forfeit the lease; (2)issue and serve a writ electing immediately and unequivocally to forfeit and claim possession; (3)issue and serve a writ cliaming in the alternative (a) determination that the lease had been forfeited and (b)enforcement of the covenants in the lease.

In Billson v Residential Properties (1992) 1 AC 494 Lord Templeman stated that the legal effect of (1) and (2) were the same.

In this case the landlord by its writ after pleading a breach of the covenant made the immediate election to forfeit. In law this was the equivalent of the landlord peaceably re-entering and taking possession. The lease was to be treated as determined by forfeiture.

As a matter of justice, after the lessor had made this election and the lessee had accepted the new relationship of landowner and trespasser thereby created, the lessee should not be required to face the risk of a change of mind by the lessor justified by second throughts as to his entitlement to take the draconian course of forfeiture by revisiting questions as to the sufficiency of his notice or the existence of the breach of covenant.

There was no basis in the statement of facts for any arguable allegation of misrepresentation, express or implied, by the tenant inducing the landlord's mistaken view that the tenant had committed a breach of covenant. There was no requirement of knowledge or absence of mistake for a valid and binding decision to exercise a contractual right.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in