Governors of Rugby School v Tannahill [1935] 1 K.B. 87
Property law – Landlord and tenant – Forfeiture
Facts
There was a lease between the plaintiff and defendant which contained a clause requiring that the land was not used for any illegal or immoral purpose. The defendant was subsequently convicted for using the premises for prostitution, in contravention of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. The plaintiff gave a notice of forfeiture to the defendant under the Law of Property Act 1925, section 146, for breaking the covenant contained in their agreement regarding illegal activity. The defendant appealed this on the basis that the notice did not afford an opportunity to provide a remedy for the action. The defendant also argued the fact that there was evidence that showed the tenant was aware, and actively permitted the premises to be used for criminal actions. The trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff and found that the contravention could not be remedied. The defendant appealed the decision.
Issue
The court was required to decide whether the discontinuance of the criminal activity could be considered to provide a remedy to the breach that the tenant had caused. If a remedy for the action could be found, this would restrict the right of the landlord to enforce the claim of forfeiture.
Decision/Outcome
The court dismissed the appeal. It was held that just because the tenant had ceased the criminal act, this did not mean that the breach had been remedied. Nor could the breach be remedied under the circumstances, and therefore this did not invalidate the notice given under the Law of Property Act 1925.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. Governors of Rugby School v Tannahill [1935] 1 KB 87 is still good law and continues to be cited as authority for the proposition that certain breaches of covenant — particularly those involving illegal or immoral use of premises — are incapable of remedy for the purposes of section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, meaning a landlord need not require the tenant to remedy the breach before pursuing forfeiture. Readers should note, however, that subsequent case law has refined the broader question of what constitutes an irremediable breach. In particular, Savva v Hussein (1996) 73 P & CR 150 and Expert Clothing Service & Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd [1986] Ch 340 moved away from the earlier approach in Scala House & District Property Co Ltd v Forbes [1974] QB 575, which had treated negative covenants as automatically irremediable. The current position is that the test for remediability focuses on whether, looking at all the circumstances, the harm caused by the breach can effectively be remedied — meaning that Tannahill remains relevant, but its reasoning should be understood alongside this wider body of authority. The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 has largely been superseded by subsequent legislation, but this does not affect the legal principles for which the case is cited. Section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 remains in force in its original relevant form.
