Timbo v London Borough Of Lambeth

The High Court’s equitable jurisdiction to relieve against forfeiture for non-payment of rent is not subject to an absolute six-month guillotine, but the six-month period applicable in the County Court is an important guide to reasonable promptitude. The court must consider the explanation for delay and the claimant’s ability to satisfy conditions of relief. A hope of amicable settlement is not, without more, an adequate explanation for a substantial delay. A landlord’s resulting windfall does not by itself justify relief where the claimant’s own delay and failure to establish ability to pay caused the outcome.

The claimant sought equitable relief from forfeiture of a long residential lease after service-charge arrears, reserved as rent, had led to forfeiture proceedings and a County Court possession order. The lease was forfeited in 2017, possession was obtained in October 2017, and the High Court claim was issued in July 2018.

The claimant argued that the claim was within time, that the court should grant relief on payment of arrears and costs, and that the defendant would otherwise obtain a windfall. The defendant relied on delay, the claimant’s payment history, inability to pay the sums due, and the circumstances in which the flat was being used.

1. Jurisdiction and timing. The claim was an exercise of the High Court’s equitable jurisdiction, not a claim under section 38 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or section 146(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The six-month period reflected in section 210 of the Common Law Procedure Act 1852 was not a strict guillotine in the High Court, but had to be treated as a significant guide when assessing reasonable promptitude.
2. Time began to run when the forfeiture proceedings were served. The claim, issued about 14 months after forfeiture, was not prompt. The claimant’s expectation of an amicable resolution did not adequately explain the delay. The ineffective attempt to seek relief, the abandoned application to set aside the possession order, and failure to attend a subsequent hearing further demonstrated the absence of reasonable promptitude.
3. The reasoning in Gibbs v Lakeside Developments Limited [2018] EWCA Civ 2874, although obiter in the relevant passage, was a powerful analysis of the equitable jurisdiction. Pineport Limited v Grangeglen Limited [2016] EWHC 1318 was exceptional and fact-sensitive; it did not assist the claimant.
4. Had relief been granted, the relevant conditions would have included outstanding service charges, assessed forfeiture and application costs, and the costs of the High Court claim. The previous default judgments remained enforceable and were not expunged by the later possession order. The claimant had not established that she could pay the amount required.
5. The defendant’s use of the flat for temporary housing caused no significant prejudice, but that factor did not overcome the claimant’s delay and inability to pay. Council tax arrears were not an appropriate condition of relief. The possibility of a windfall to the defendant did not tip the equitable balance in the claimant’s favour.
6. The claim was dismissed.