Relief from forfeiture cannot be granted by agreement between the parties
12th August, 2012
When a tenant fails to adhere to its lease obligations, for example for non-payment of rent, it is common for the landlord to exercise its right under the lease of forfeiture to re-enter and take possession of the premises.
Forfeiture can be brought about either by taking physical possession of the premises or by court order. Whichever method is used, it brings the lease to an end. The tenant has the right to go to court to have the forfeiture set aside.
A failure to make an application to the court to have the forfeiture set aside
In the recent case of Zestcrest Limited v County Hall Green Ventures, a tenant fell into rent arrears. The landlord subsequently exercised its rights of forfeiture under the lease.
Subsequently the parties reached an agreement as to the payment of the rent arrears and that the tenant’s occupation of the premises should continue on the same lease terms. The tenant however did not apply to the court to have the forfeiture rescinded, arguing it would result in unnecessary costs due to the agreement that the parties had made. The landlord, seeking to formalise the position, applied to the court.
The court held that only the court can grant relief from forfeiture, in line with County Court Act 1984. Any agreement between the parties to do so would not “resurrect” the original lease terms but would result in a new tenancy being created. The landlord in this case had been reasonable to require the tenant to obtain a court order and to pay the landlord’s costs.
Consequences for the parties of a new tenancy
A new tenancy can lead to numerous undesirable consequences for the parties. These include releasing guarantors from their obligations under the original lease, requiring that consents from other people with an interest in the property be obtained, possibly creating a new charge to Stamp Duty Land Tax and releasing any form of security secured against the original lease such as a rent deposit deed.
What the parties should do
“It is risky to yield to the temptation to make an informal agreement with regard to any property or other contractual issue,” says Simon Ellis, a solicitor in the Real Estate team at Aaron and Partners LLP Solicitors. “Getting the paperwork properly drawn up and obtaining any necessary court orders is a small price to pay compared with ending up with a costly legal dispute.”
Please contact Simon Ellis for any further information related to this article or any other commercial property issue at [email protected]
You might also be interested in...
22nd May, 2018
With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) coming into force in May, businesses across Shropshire have been flocking to hear more about the new laws Paul Bennett, a partner at law firm Aaron & Partners LLP, has been delivering seminars in partnership with the Shropshire Chamber of Commerce An employment solicitor from Shrewsbury is urging businesses across the... Read More »
15th May, 2018
Experienced HR leader joins Aaron & Partners LLP Law firm with offices in Chester and Shrewsbury appoints Kate Robertson to drive HR strategy for more than 120 staff and to support the company’s growth Chester law firm Aaron & Partners LLP has strengthened its senior leadership team with the appointment of an experienced human resources manager. Kate Robertson... Read More »
24th April, 2018
Jan Chillery, Insolvency Partner at Aaron & Partners LLP, shares her experience and the reasons why we should be cautious before paying so-called “bailiffs” over the phone or online without vetting them first. My neighbour has told me that recently he had a CCJ (County Court Judgment) against him. A day or so later, he received a phone call... Read More »