Crisp v Eastaugh

Relief from forfeiture should not be refused merely because a tenant lacks immediately available cash. The court must consider whether the evidence shows that arrears, compensation and relevant costs can be paid within a sufficiently near period to restore the landlord to the position that forfeiture had not occurred. A tenant does not ordinarily repudiate a lease by advancing an honest challenge to the landlord’s title while accepting the lease and submitting the dispute to the court. Forfeiture for denial of title requires clear and unequivocal conduct showing unwillingness to remain bound.

The appeal arose from a six-day action in the High Court concerning a long lease of agricultural land. The deputy judge found rent arrears and breaches of covenant, declared the lease forfeited and refused relief because the tenant could not demonstrate an ability to make the required payments within a short period. The tenant also challenged the current landlord’s title in related proceedings and in the forfeiture proceedings. The landlord contended that this amounted to a denial of title and justified forfeiture. The appeal concerned whether relief should be granted on conditions and whether the tenant’s pleadings repudiated the landlord-and-tenant relationship.

1. Appeal allowed. The court re-exercised the discretion and granted relief from forfeiture of the 1972 lease on conditions. The respondent’s notice based on denial of title was dismissed.
2. Relief from forfeiture is discretionary and must be approached on principled grounds. The tenant’s lack of immediately available cash was not conclusive. The judge had overlooked findings that the tenant owned valuable land and had rights under the lease in respect of a potentially lettable property. There was sufficient material to support the conclusion that the sums due could be found.
3. Relief was made conditional on payment of the rent arrears within 14 days, compensation for the breaches within 21 days after assessment, and the relevant costs within the period directed by the court. A further £3,000 was to be held by the tenant’s solicitors as security pending assessment. There was no reason to doubt future payment of the modest rent. The court also held that section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 did not prevent a condition requiring payment of costs beyond the amount otherwise recoverable from a publicly funded litigant.
4. On denial of title, the relevant question was whether the tenant had repudiated the lease by clearly and unequivocally demonstrating that he would no longer be bound by it. The tenant accepted the lease, advanced an honest dispute about the landlord’s title, and gave no indication that he would refuse to abide by the court’s decision. His challenge was therefore equivocal. The absence of notice under section 48 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 formed part of that context.
5. May LJ added an obiter observation that, in modern practice and under the Civil Procedure Rules, pleadings challenging title would normally not justify forfeiture, absent an exceptional case such as bad faith. The landlord was awarded the costs of the appeal, subject to the conditions of relief.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal, granted conditional relief from forfeiture, and dismissed the respondent’s notice on denial of title.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division: Following a six-day action, the deputy judge found rent arrears and covenant breaches, declared the lease forfeited and refused relief from forfeiture. He held that there had been no denial of title.