Dunraven Securities Ltd v Holloway (1982) 264 E.G. 709
Property law – Landlord and tenant – Covenants
Facts
The case involved a 150-year lease of a property between landlord and tenant, with the property being a retail store. The agreement was that the tenant would pay a peppercorn rent, an insurance premium and a service charge which was calculated by another schedule within the agreement. Within the terms, aside from paying rent, the landlord also agreed not to undertake or permit illegal activity on the premises. The tenant later opened up a sex shop in the retail space he had leased and was placed under a confiscation order as per the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The landlord issued a possession order for the property as a result of the tenant breaching the covenant within the lease. This application was subsequently appealed by the tenant.
Issue
The issue for the court, in this case, was whether the defendant’s illegal act had been committed in line with the Obscene Publications Act 1959. If this was the case, then the court was required to decide if this was a breach of the lease agreement between the parties and whether such a breach could be repaired by the tenant.
Decision/Outcome
The tenant’s appeal against the possession order given by the landlord was dismissed. It was found that the tenant had committed an illegal act under the Act and therefore this was a breach that could not be remedied. The appellant judge agreed with the trial judge’s decision that the relief from forfeiture should be rejected in line with the correct decision which was given earlier.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case note covers a 1982 Court of Appeal decision and accurately summarises the core facts, issue, and outcome. The decision remains good law as an illustration of how breach of a covenant against illegal use can constitute an irremediable breach, disentitling a tenant to relief from forfeiture. The underlying legal framework governing forfeiture and relief from forfeiture has since been substantially reviewed and debated, most notably in Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd [1992] 1 AC 494 (HL) and subsequent cases, which refined the circumstances in which relief may be granted and the procedural requirements around peaceable re-entry. Readers should note that the law on relief from forfeiture, including what constitutes a remediable versus irremediable breach, continues to be shaped by case law and remains a nuanced area. The Obscene Publications Act 1959 remains in force, though the wider regulatory landscape around obscene and sexually explicit material has been significantly supplemented by later legislation, including the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. None of these developments alter the core principle illustrated by this case, but students should be aware that Dunraven should be read alongside later authorities when applying the law on irremediable breaches and forfeiture.
