Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
Abbey National Building Society v Maybeech Ltd
[1985] Ch 190, [1984] 3 All ER 262, [1984] 3 WLR 793, 128 Sol Jo 721, [1984] LS Gaz R 3174, 271 Estates Gazette 995
Court: Ch D
Judgment Date: circa 1985
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
dictum Lord Wilberforce Applied | Shiloh Spinners Ltd v Harding | [1973] AC 691, [1973] 1 All ER 90, [1973] 2 WLR 28, 25 P & CR 48, 117 Sol Jo 34 | HL | circa 1973 | |
dictum Day J Applied | Clare v Dobson | [1911] 1 KB 35, 80 LJKB 158, 103 LT 506, 27 TLR 22 | KBD | circa 1911 | |
Applied | Gray v Bonsall | [1904] 1 KB 601, 73 LJKB 515, 52 WR 387, 48 Sol Jo 310, 90 LT 404, 20 TLR 335 | CA | circa 1904 |
EQUITY - EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES - FORFEITURES - RELIEF AGAINST FORFEITURE - EQUITABLE JURISDICTION - WHETHER DISPLACED BY EXISTENCE OF STATUTORY REMEDY
The plaintiff building society made a loan to a lessee of a flat, the loan being secured by a charge by way of legal mortgage over the lease. After the lessee had fallen into arrears with maintenance contributions due under the lease the lessor obtained judgment against him in a forfeiture action and recovered possession of the property. The plaintiff first became aware of the forfeiture upon notification by the Land Registry of the lessor's application for the closure of the lessee's title to the lease. Formerly there had existed in equity the power to grant relief from forfeiture even where the forfeiture had been completed by judgment and execution. Now, under the Law of Property Act 1925 s 146(4) the court may grant relief to a person claiming as underlessee 'where a lessor is proceeding by action or otherwise to enforce a right of re-entry or forfeiture ...' The question arose whether the words of that section negatived the continued existence of any equitable jurisdiction of the court to grant relief from forfeiture, so that a mortgagee would not be able to obtain relief after the lessor had forfeited the lease and regained possession under a court order: Held on its true construction, s 146(4) did not displace the court's inherent equitable jurisdiction to grant relief to a person claiming as an underlessee where the lessee had failed to pay a sum, other than rent, due under the lease. As the plaintiff was not at fault regarding the breaches of covenant nor in not applying for relief earlier and the lessor had suffered no loss that could not be remedied by payment of the arrears, the court would, in the present case, grant relief in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction.
LANDLORD AND TENANT - THE GENERAL LAW - DETERMINATION OF TENANCIES: RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - FORFEITURE - RELIEF AGAINST FORFEITURE - BREACH OF COVENANT OTHER THAN NONPAYMENT OF RENT - RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF UNDERLESSEES - IN GENERAL - LEASE MORTGAGED - RELIEF OF MORTGAGEE - RELIEF BARRED BY STATUTE - WHETHER COURT HAVING EQUITABLE JURISDICTION TO GRANT RELIEF - LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S 146(4)
A mortgagee advanced money to a lessee of a flat, the loan being secured by a charge by way of legal mortgage. Subsequently the lessor of the flat brought proceedings against the lessee to enforce his right to forfeit the lease for non-payment of certain maintenance contributions payable under the lease but without notifying the mortgagee of the proceedings. In consequence the lease was forfeited and the lessor obtained possession of the premises under a court order without the knowledge of the mortgagee. When it discovered what had happened, the mortgagee applied to the court for relief against forfeiture of the lease. The lessor contended that it was too late for the court to grant such relief because the mortgagee was a 'person claiming as under-lessee [an] estate or interest in the property comprised in the lease', within s 146(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925, and therefore could only be granted relief while the lessor was 'proceeding by action or otherwise to enforce a right of re-entry or forfeiture', which the lessor was no longer doing once judgment had been executed and the lessor had gone into possession: Held on its true construction, s 146(4) of the 1925 Act did not displace the court's inherent equitable jurisdiction to grant relief to a person claiming as underlessee where the lessee failed to pay a sum (other than rent) due under the lease. It followed that, although it was too late for the court to grant the mortgagee relief under s 146(4), the court could, and would, grant relief in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction.
