ABN Group Holdings Limited v Yarrow (PC) Limited

Whether premises are a “dwelling” under the relevant landlord and tenant legislation is determined objectively at the material time. The court must consider the purpose for which the premises were then intended to be occupied, including their physical configuration and condition. A historic intention to refurbish or use premises residentially is not determinative where, at the relevant date, the premises are being held pending improved market conditions and no active refurbishment is intended.

Compliance with a mandatory statutory notice requirement does not waive an existing right of forfeiture where the notice is necessary to pursue rent arrears. A claim for equitable relief from forfeiture should identify a basis of reasonable promptitude, but an arguable pleaded case should not be struck out summarily where the issue requires evidence.

The claimant was the long leaseholder of a severely dilapidated block formerly arranged as 29 flats. The defendant acquired the freehold reversion and purported to forfeit the lease for unpaid rent.

The claimant sought possession and, alternatively, relief from forfeiture. The parties made applications for strike out and summary judgment. The central issues included whether the property was a “dwelling” under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002; whether statutory rent notices had been served; whether statutory notices amounted to waiver; and whether the claim for relief from forfeiture was adequately pleaded.

1. Dwelling. The statutory question was whether, objectively, any part of the property was intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling on 24 January 2025, the date of forfeiture. The inquiry was not fixed when the lease was granted. In this non-mixed-use case, the physical configuration and condition of the property were as important as the terms of the lease.
2. The property had remained stripped out and uninhabitable for several years. The proposed refurbishment had not proceeded and there was no evidence that it had been revived by the date of forfeiture. The claimant intended to hold the property until market conditions improved, then either sell it or refurbish it for sale. That was not an intention to occupy any part of it as a separate dwelling. The lease was therefore not a lease of a dwelling for the purposes of the 1987 and 2002 Acts.
3. Statutory notices. The evidence that rent demands had been posted was sufficient to raise the common-law presumption of service, but the claimant’s evidence raised sufficient doubt about receipt to create a triable issue. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.
4. Waiver. Notices served under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 were mandatory statutory notices. Their service could not amount to an unequivocal affirmation of the lease where service was required before the landlord could pursue rent arrears. Otherwise, the landlord would face the statutory difficulty that rent was not recoverable until notice was served, while service would destroy the right to forfeit.
5. Relief from forfeiture and pleading. Reasonable promptitude was relevant both to jurisdiction and to discretionary relief. The claimant’s pleaded assertion that it had not known of the re-entry until 29 August 2025 was sufficient to prevent strike out. The issue required evidence at trial. A positive case of surrender or other unenforceability had to be properly pleaded, rather than advanced by putting the claimant to strict proof. The relevant pleading issues were adjourned to allow amendment within 28 days.