Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd
A tenant can apply for relief from forfeiture even after a landlord has peaceably re-entered the premises.
Facts
The tenants of a house in London carried out substantial works of alteration in breach of a covenant in the lease. The landlords served a notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, and when the breach was not remedied, they peaceably re-entered the premises early one morning, at about 6 am, while the premises were empty, and changed the locks. The tenants regained possession a few hours later and applied for relief from forfeiture. The landlords argued that relief was not available after re-entry had taken place.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the tenants could apply for relief. Lord Templeman said that section 146(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925, which allows a tenant to apply for relief where a lessor is proceeding to enforce a right of re-entry or forfeiture, applies where the landlord has re-entered peaceably without obtaining a court order, as well as where the landlord brings proceedings. Otherwise, landlords would be encouraged to use self help to avoid the court's power to grant relief, which would be undesirable.
Related cases on leasehold covenants and forfeiture
- Akici v LR Butlin Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1296, [2006] 1 WLR 201
- Avonridge Property Co Ltd v Mashru [2005] UKHL 70, [2005] 1 WLR 3956
- 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.
