Van Haarlam v Kasner Charitable Trust (1992) 64 P. & C.R. 214
Property law – Landlord and tenant – Forfeiture
Facts
The plaintiff held a 99-year lease over a flat which had a subsequent covenant, preventing the flat from being used for illegal activity. He was later arrested and charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911 and Official Secrets Act 1920, section 7. He was charged and convicted on the basis that he possessed equipment which enabled him to receive secret communications. In the meantime, the defendant gathered advice on forfeiture which was incorrect, and proceeded to send out rent demands which were unpaid. He subsequently served notice to the plaintiff that he had broken the covenant in the lease, and this could not be remedied.
Issue
The court was required to define whether the landlord had a right to implement his right to forfeiture for the actions of the tenant. Specifically, it had to be proven that the criminal acts the tenant was charged with had taken place in the flat, and whether the landlord had waived the right to forfeiture for proceeding with the agreement when he had information as to the tenant’s activity.
Decision/Outcome
The court held that the criminal acts in question were carried out within the flat and therefore they amounted to a breach of the covenant. However, the court also found that a landlord who knew that a tenant was breaching the covenant and continued with the agreement, would be considered to waive the right to forfeiture. He knew in this case and therefore waived the right. The court also highlighted that even if this were not to be the case, the court would have granted relief to the tenant as the landlord would have received the flat with an 80-year lease which was a benefit that far outweighed the damage caused by the tenant.
Updated 21 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issue, and outcome of Van Haarlam v Kasner Charitable Trust (1992) 64 P. & C.R. 214. The legal principles described — relating to forfeiture of a long lease for breach of a user covenant, the doctrine of waiver of forfeiture by a landlord with knowledge of the breach, and the court’s discretion to grant relief against forfeiture — remain good law. The waiver principle (that a landlord who, with knowledge of the breach, does an unequivocal act recognising the lease as continuing will be taken to have waived the right to forfeit) continues to be applied by the courts. The jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture for breach of covenant (other than non-payment of rent) is governed by section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which has not been materially amended in ways that affect the principles discussed. Readers should note that law reform in this area has been under discussion for some years — the Law Commission has previously recommended replacing forfeiture with a statutory termination of tenancies regime — but no such legislation has been enacted as of the current date. The article remains a sound account of the case for study purposes.
