Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd [1992] 1 A.C. 494
Property law – Landlord and tenant – Forfeiture
Facts
The landlords had a lease with the tenants of a freehold property which included a covenant that prevented the tenants from undertaking alterations of the property without the landlord’s consent. During the tenancy, and without express permission or the landlord’s consent, the tenants undertook major construction work on the property. Under the Law of Property Act 1925, section 46, the landlord served a notice requiring the breach of covenant to be remedied, which the tenants failed to do. The landlords later entered the premises, changed the locks and claimed forfeiture. The construction men subsequently broke into the property and reclaimed possession. Both parties appealed to the court for clarification and the court held that once the landlord regained possession, the court no longer had jurisdiction.
Issue
It was important for the court to establish at which point that they had jurisdiction over the matter in hand. The landlord of the property had gained re-entry to the property but had done so without the permission of the court. It was also important for the court to establish whether the plaintiff had a right to appeal after their breach of the covenant.
Decision/Outcome
The court allowed the appeal of the tenant, on the basis that the landlord had entered the property without gaining a court order allowing him to do so. However, the court emphasised that the tenant could not apply for relief once the landlord had regained possession of the property and had the courts permission to do so. In the current circumstances, this had not been established and therefore the tenant’s application for relief would be considered by the court.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article remains broadly accurate as a summary of Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd [1992] 1 AC 494, which is still good law and an important authority on forfeiture and the court’s jurisdiction to grant relief to tenants under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The House of Lords confirmed that a tenant may apply for relief from forfeiture even after a landlord has peaceably re-entered without a court order, and that the landlord’s unilateral re-entry does not extinguish the tenant’s right to seek relief.
One factual inaccuracy should be noted: the article refers to the notice being served under section 46 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The correct provision is section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, not section 46. This is a material error that could mislead readers.
Readers should also be aware of subsequent legislative and case law developments in this area. The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 introduced additional restrictions on forfeiture of long residential leases, including requirements for a determination of breach by a tribunal or court before a section 146 notice can be served in certain circumstances (see sections 167–170). These provisions apply to long residential leases and are not directly addressed by Billson, which concerned a commercial-style lease. More recent case law, including Patel v K&J Restaurants Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1211, has continued to refine the principles around relief from forfeiture. The broader law of forfeiture remains under review; the Law Commission has previously recommended its abolition and replacement, though no legislation implementing such reform has been enacted to date. Students should treat Billson as an authoritative case on the specific question of a tenant’s right to apply for relief after peaceable re-entry, while being aware that the surrounding legislative framework, particularly for residential tenancies, has developed since 1992.
