Frequently Asked Questions

The case of Continental Property Ventures Inc v White was brought in regard to the enforceability of lease covenants and a landlord's right to forfeit a lease in relation to the breaches committed by a tenant.

Continental Property Ventures Inc v White [2006] 1 E.G.L.R. 85

Summary

The case of Continental Property Ventures Inc v White [2006] 1 E.G.L.R. 85 was brought in regard to the enforceability of lease covenants and a landlord's right to forfeit a lease in relation to the breaches committed by a tenant. The principles relating to lease forfeiture, tenant's right to relief from forfeiture and discretion of the courts in that respect are examined in these matters. It is a judgment illustrative of calibration between the strict application of the terms of a lease and equitable relief afforded to a tenant.

Facts

Continental Property Ventures Inc was a landlord who had let a commercial property to Mr. White. In the terms of tenancy, Mr. White was under obligation to observe a number of covenants, with the greatest number relating to payment of rents and keeping the premises in good repair. With time, Mr. White had spent time ceasing to observe such covenants emanating from falling into arrears with rent and failing to effect requisite repairs.

The claimant served a notice under Section 146, Law of Property Act 1925, specifically identifying the breaches and requesting remedy within the time specified therein, to which Mr. White never responded. Afterward, the claimant issued forfeiture proceedings for recovering possession of the property. The claim came before the County Court where Mr. White applied for relief from forfeiture to the effect that he should be given an opportunity to remedy the breaches and to be permitted to continue with the lease.

Issues

The main issues arising in the case at hand were:

1. Whether the breaches of lease covenants by Mr. White justified the lease's forfeiture.

2. Whether Mr. White was entitled to a relief against forfeiture despite his omissions in observing the lease terms .

3. What is proper exercise of court discretions in granting a relief against forfeiture

First Instance

It was claimed before the County Court, to the effect that the breaches were substantial and persistent, running to Ground 1, amounting to forfeiture of the lease. Evidence in this connection also includes unpaid rent, lack of maintenance, and prior notices not being complied with.

On his part, Mr. White submitted that the breaches were not serious enough to warrant a case of forfeiture and that he had the capability and willingness to cure the same if given a chance. He brought out the serious negative effect which the forfeiture was to have on his business and pleaded for relief against forfeiture not to suffer undue hardship.

The County Court took the view that the breaches were serious, Mr White had had ample opportunity to remedy them and had failed to do so, and so ordered forfeiture of the lease and dismissed his application for relief under section 138 on the correct ground that he had shown a pattern of carelessness and disregard.

Decision on Appeal

Mr White appealed to the High Court on the basis that the County Court had erred in refusing to grant relief against forfeiture. The High Court reviews the facts and how the lower court applied the law in making its decision.

The High Court took into consideration the seriousness and impact of those breaches, how they impacted on Mr. White's conduct, and the possibility of compliance in the future. It did accept definitely that remedy by way of forfeiture is drastic and needs to be balanced against a tenant's right to rectify breaches and potential hardship caused by the decision of forfeiture.

The High Court ultimately held that the decision of the County Court, which was that Mr. White's breaches were serious and persistent enough to justify the forfeiture, was correct. As observed by the court, the relief from forfeiture was an equitable remedy, with respect to which Mr. White had not come forth with any such conduct to warrant the court granting him relief. The ruling further reiterated that tenancy precedent by making it clear that for a tenant to seek equitable relief they must show regard for the lease provisions and a proper intention to comply.

Comments

The Continental Property Ventures Inc v White judgment brings out several key issues in the law relating to landlords and tenants and the enforcement of lease covenants, such as:

1. Tight Enforcement of Lease Terms—The decision puts considerable emphasis on the tight enforcement of lease covenants. Continued breaches, especially arrears of rent and repair cases, may very well constitute grounds for trespass.

2. Relief from Forfeiture: The discretionary remedy of relief from forfeiture is to guard against undue hardship; however, for tenants applying for relief to succeed, there ought to be an actual intention and ability to rectify the breaches and have the capability of observing the terms of the lease in future dealings.

3. Discretion of the Court: The judgment displays caution on the part of the court while weighing the landlord's rights against possible hardship of the tenant. If discretion is given to the courts for a grant of relief, then the judgment makes it clear that such a relief is by no means automatic and turns on the conduct of the tenant, viz. his willingness to comply.

4. Equitable Principles: The case makes clear, yet again, that equitable remedies like relief from forfeitures are reserved for those who come to equity with clean hands. Tenants who persistently continue in breach of their obligations and frequently fail to make adequate remediation may have enormous difficulty securing relief on this ground.

5. Business Implications: From the foregoing case, commercial tenants should be warned just how great the impact is of forfeiture to one's business. It means that with every lease, a great deal of responsibility comes with ensuring its viability and diligent adherence toward such obligations, avoiding dire consequences of falling prone to those whose businesses were only waiting for benefits from such nice and fat pickings.

It is submitted that the final word in Continental Property Ventures Inc v White is significant in the form Alexandria of a legal precedent in the area of lease enforcement as between the delicate balancing between contractual obligations and equitable relief. The judgment gives invaluable guidance to both landlords and tenants in relation to the requirement for lease compliance and the possible consequences of any failure to do so.

Social