Pineport Ltd v Grangeglen Ltd

The High Court has an equitable jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture following peaceable re-entry for non-payment of rent, without a fixed statutory time limit. The court must consider all the circumstances, including the reasons for delay, the landlord’s prejudice, the value of the lease compared with the arrears, and whether any serious breach is likely to continue. Relief will ordinarily require payment of arrears and expenses sufficient to restore the landlord to the position it would have occupied without forfeiture. A past unlawful use will not normally justify refusal where there is no real risk of repetition.

The claimant sought relief from forfeiture of a 125-year underlease of an industrial unit. The defendant had peaceably re-entered for unpaid service charges amounting to £2,155. The application was issued about 14 months after re-entry.

The claimant relied on depression, a restraint order affecting its finances, lack of specialist advice and its ability to raise the sums required for relief. The defendant relied on delay, alleged prejudice, expenditure incurred after forfeiture and the claimant’s use of the premises in connection with dishonest MOT activity. The central issues were whether relief remained available, whether the delay or unlawful use made relief inappropriate, and upon what terms relief should be granted.

1. Jurisdiction and approach. The High Court had an equitable jurisdiction, independent of statute, to grant relief after peaceable re-entry for non-payment of rent. The six-month period under section 210 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 was a guide, not an absolute limitation period. The court should assess the broad circumstances overall rather than treat delay as an isolated threshold issue.
2. Delay. The relevant question was whether the claimant had applied with reasonable promptitude, having regard to the statutory guide period. Fourteen months was a serious delay, but the concept was elastic. Depression, the restraint order, financial hardship, lack of specialist advice and the claimant’s genuine misunderstanding of forfeiture explained the delay sufficiently in this case. The claim was not barred.
3. Other breaches and unlawful use. Following Gill v Lewis [1956] 2 QB 1, other breaches are generally irrelevant in a non-payment case, save in exceptional circumstances. The important consideration was whether relief would assist continuing unlawful conduct. The claimant had lost its MOT licence and there was no real risk of repetition, so the convictions were not a relevant factor.
4. Proportionality and prejudice. The substantial premium lease and the severe disparity between the lease value and the arrears weighed strongly in favour of relief. The defendant had shown no material prejudice and had not marketed the unit. Relief was therefore appropriate.
5. Terms and outcome. The claimant had to pay arrears, relevant expenses, interest and properly evidenced forfeiture-related costs. The court allowed £23,988.01 plus interest, assessed the total at £24,530, and was satisfied that payment could be made within the immediately foreseeable future. Relief from forfeiture was granted on terms to be fixed after submissions. Late invoices were excluded because they were disclosed only during the trial without adequate explanation.