Akici v LR Butlin Ltd
Breaches of covenants against sharing or parting with possession of premises are capable of remedy, unlike an unlawful assignment or subletting.
Facts
Mr Akici was the tenant of a shop, under a lease that prohibited him from sharing or parting with possession of the premises. The landlord alleged that he had allowed a company to run its business from the shop, in breach of these covenants, and served a notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which did not require him to remedy the breach. The landlord then re-entered.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the breaches were capable of remedy, so the notice was invalid and the forfeiture failed. Neuberger LJ said that Scala House v Forbes established that an unlawful assignment or subletting is incapable of remedy, because it creates a legal interest that cannot be undone, but that this reasoning did not apply to breaches of covenants against sharing or parting with possession, which do not create a legal interest. Such breaches could be remedied by ending the arrangement.
Related cases on leasehold covenants and forfeiture
- Avonridge Property Co Ltd v Mashru [2005] UKHL 70, [2005] 1 WLR 3956
- Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd [1992] 1 AC 494
- City of London Corporation v Fell [1994] 1 AC 458
- Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1
- Duke of Westminster v Guild [1985] QB 688
- Expert Clothing Service & Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd [1986] Ch 340
- Glass v Kencakes Ltd [1966] 1 QB 611
- Hussein v Mehlman [1992] 2 EGLR 87
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
