Scala House and District Property Co Ltd v Forbes [1974] Q.B. 575
Property law – Landlord and tenant – Forfeiture
Facts
The lessees of a property agreed not to underlet or provide possession of the premises to a third-party without the landlord’s consent. They had planned to use the property as a restaurant. The lessee then entered into a secondary agreement for third-party individuals to manage the restaurant for which he used the premises. However, this agreement had a clause which created a sub-tenancy which left him in breach of the covenant. The landlord served a notice under the Law of Property Act 1925, section 46 which required them to remedy the situation caused by the mistake of the contract. Fourteen days later, the landlord issued a writ for the possession of the premises under the Act. The trial judge held that the breach in this instance could be remedied and dismissed the action. The landlord appealed this decision.
Issue
Based on the trial judge’s decision, it was important to establish whether the breach in question was capable of being easily remedied. The court also had to decide if the fourteen day time limit given by the landlord was enough to allow for the remedy and begin proceedings.
Decision/Outcome
The court allowed the appeal from the landlord but provided the tenant with relief from forfeiture. It was held that a breach not to assign a sub-letting was not a breach that could be easily rectified within the meaning of the Act. It was also held by the court that allowing fourteen days to pass before starting such proceedings did not allow enough time for a remedy to be found.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case summary broadly describes Scala House and District Property Co Ltd v Forbes [1974] QB 575 accurately. The Court of Appeal’s holding that a breach of a covenant not to sublet is incapable of remedy remains a recognised principle in English landlord and tenant law.
However, readers should be aware of two important points. First, the article refers to a notice under ‘section 46 of the Law of Property Act 1925’, which appears to be an error: the relevant provision governing forfeiture notices is section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, not section 46. Second, the law on whether breaches are ‘capable of remedy’ has developed considerably since 1974. The Court of Appeal in Expert Clothing Service and Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd [1986] Ch 340 clarified that many breaches of positive covenants are capable of remedy. More significantly, the Supreme Court in Telchadder v Wickland Holdings Ltd [2014] UKSC 57 and earlier decisions such as Savva v Hussein (1996) 73 P & CR 150 have nuanced the approach to remediability, suggesting that even some negative covenant breaches may be capable of remedy if the harm caused can be effectively removed. The broad proposition that a breach of a covenant against subletting can never be remedied should therefore be treated with caution in light of subsequent authority. Students should consult up-to-date landlord and tenant law sources for the current position on remediability under section 146.
