Bass Holdings Ltd v Morton Music Ltd [1988] Ch. 493
Property law – Landlord and tenant – Lease
Facts
The plaintiffs granted the defendants a fifteen-year lease, with the option to extend the lease for a period of 125 years, provided this was given within the three years of the original agreement and the covenants within the lease had been followed. Of these covenants, the defendants were not to apply for planning permission without written consent and to pay rent on time. Two years into the agreement, the defendants had fallen behind on rent and made two planning permission applications, both of which were unsuccessful and without the plaintiffs’ consent. The defendants gained court relief from forfeiture and repaid the debt owed to the landlord. They subsequently bought a claim to extend the lease for the extra 125 years. The plaintiffs claimed that the option was now invalid and could not be exercised. In the initial trial, the court held that the breach for payment had been remedied but applying for planning permission without the consent of the plaintiff could not be remedied. The defendants appealed this decision.
Issue
The court had a number of issues to decide in this case. The first was defining when the agreement had been struck and whether it could be relied upon. The second was whether the defendants could rely on the option on the basis that they had broken the covenant in their agreement. Lastly, the court had to understand whether that because they had remedied the breach, the agreement was broken.
Decision/Outcome
The court allowed the defendants’ appeal. This was on the basis that the plaintiffs required the covenants to be followed so strictly that it was unlikely any tenant would be in a position to do so.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary relates to Bass Holdings Ltd v Morton Music Ltd [1988] Ch 493, a Court of Appeal decision. The case remains good law and is still cited in discussions of landlord and tenant law, particularly concerning the exercise of options in leases and the consequences of breach of covenant. No subsequent legislation or case law has overturned the decision.
However, readers should be aware that the law surrounding relief from forfeiture and lease covenants has developed considerably since 1988. In particular, the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 substantially reformed the law on leasehold covenants (though it applies to tenancies granted on or after 1 January 1996 and would not affect this case directly). Students researching this area should ensure they consider that broader statutory and case law context. The article’s summary of the facts and outcome is broadly accurate, though it is notably brief and does not fully explain the court’s reasoning on the remediability of the planning covenant breach, which is the legally significant aspect of the decision.
