‘In the first of our “Remind me about” series, John Grocott-Barrett of Wilberforce Chambers summarises the law relating to these two important sections of the Pensions Act 1995. The “Remind me about” series is aimed as a training tool and as an update for busy practitioners.’
Pensions Barrister, 22nd March 2023
Source: www.pensionsbarrister.com
‘Forfeiture, penalties and damages in property law. The 8th Annual Property Law Lecture at the School of Law and Social Justice in the University of Liverpool given by Mr Justice Fancourt, Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster on Tuesday, 21 February 2023.’
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, 8th March 2023
Source: www.judiciary.uk
‘Before 28 October 2018, when judgment was delivered in Lloyds Banking Group Pensions Trustees v Lloyds Bank [2018] EWHC 2839 (Ch), forfeiture of benefits in occupational pension schemes was hardly a “hot topic”.’
Wilberforce Chambers, January 2023
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘On 11 August 2022 Mr Justice Leech handed down judgment in CMG Pension Trustees Ltd v CGI IT UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 2130 (Ch), a claim primarily concerning the construction of a rule in the CMG UK Pension Scheme which the defendant sponsoring employer contended provided for forfeiture of members’ benefits in specified circumstances.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 11th August 2022
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘Ms Chipo Kalonga (“Ms Kalonga”) was the tenant of a property in Croydon under a flexible tenancy for a fixed term of five years from 25 May 2015 to 24 May 2020 (the “Tenancy Agreement“). Croydon London Borough Council was her landlord (“Croydon“).’
UKSC Blog, 5th April 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Croydon London Borough Council v Kalonga (2022) UKSC 7. In which the Supreme Court considered the position on termination of “flexible tenancies” – fixed term secure tenancies – during the fixed term. We saw the Court of Appeal judgment dismissing Croydon’s appeal of the dismissal of its possession claim. Croydon then appealed to the Supreme Court.’
Nearly Legal, 27th March 2022
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Allegations of criminal behaviour are normally tried in the criminal courts. But where a crime is either not prosecuted, or cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the question may end up being tried in a civil court, even where the allegation is as serious as it could be, such as murder. This may cause difficulties where the evidence relied upon has been obtained by a third party, such as a police force whether in England or abroad, and the claimant is not in a position to give a detailed account of the allegation until that evidence is available.’
St John's Chambers, 1st February 2022
Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk
‘The High Court (Morgan J.) has delivered judgment in Punter Southall Governance Services Ltd v Hazlett [2021] EWHC 1652 (Ch), concerning the Axminster Carpets Group pension plan. It is now the leading judgment on limitation in claims by pension scheme beneficiaries for arrears. It also gives key guidance on the court’s power to award interest on such claims and on the interpretation and exercise of forfeiture clauses, and makes certain findings on the scope of s.37 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. This summary only scratches the surface of a detailed 347-paragraph judgment covering several different areas of pensions and trusts law. A more flippant title might have been: “The Axminster Carpets case: a pile of issues…”’
Wilberforce Chambers, 24th June 2021
Source: www.wilberforce.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has granted Croydon Council permission to appeal in a dispute over the termination of fixed term secure flexible tenancies.’
Local Government Lawyer, 28th April 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Keshwala & Anor v Bhalsod & Anor (2021) EWCA Civ 492. This was the second appeal, to the Court of Appeal, of a relief from forfeiture matter for commercial property that we have previously seen in the High Court (our report here). The issue was whether a relief from forfeiture application made just within 6 months of the date of forfeiture was brought with ‘reasonable promptitude’ for the purposes of the equitable relief from from forfeiture.’
Nearly Legal, 18th April 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Last year there were two reported decisions in respect of the forfeiture rule. These are worth mention given the rarity of reported cases in this area.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 17th February 2021
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘On 22nd January the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of Faiz v Burnley Borough Council (2021) EWCA Civ 55. Judgment dismissing the appeal was given by Lewison LJ; with whom Arnold and Asplin LLJs agreed. The case came on appeal from the decision of HHJ Halliwell (2020) EWHC 407 (Ch).’
Nearly Legal, 26th January 2021
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The tenants (Claimants) had a twenty-year lease of 89 Narborough Road, Leicester (Property) which commenced on 12 March 2008. The Property consisted of a lock-up shop on the ground floor with residential accommodation above. The Claimants mistakenly paid only £1,500 of the £2,000 quarterly instalment of rent that fell due in June 2018, leaving arrears of £500.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 14th October 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Two cases this year demonstrate the court’s approach to claims for relief from the forfeiture rule. The first case concerns Sandra Amos’ claim following her conviction of causing the death of her husband by careless driving. The second follows the case of Sally Challen, initially convicted of the murder of her husband. Mrs Challen’s conviction was subsequently quashed by the Court of Appeal and her guilty plea to manslaughter was later accepted by the Crown.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 7th October 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘Keshwala & Anor v Bhalsod & Anor (2020) EWHC 2372 (QB). An appeal from a Circuit Judge’s decision refusing relief from forfeiture, focussing on the issue of delay in making the application for relief. This was a commercial lease, though with living accommodation above. Mr Keshwala had taken a 20 year lease of the property in 2008. In 2015, the current freeholder had bought the freehold. Also in 2015, the rent first fell into arrears. The freeholder forfeited by re-entry and Mr K obtained relief from forfeiture on payment of arrears and costs.’
Nearly Legal, 4th October 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The “flexible tenancy” was the latest, and mercifully the last, in a long line of new “tenancies” created by Parliament to address perceived deficiencies within social housing. The flexible tenancy is a fixed term secure tenancy that is capable of determination at the end of its term by not becoming a secure periodic tenancy. Its purpose was to enable a greater churn of social housing and to ensure that such housing went to those tenants in greatest housing need. The flexible tenancy did not prove popular—there are said to be only 30,000 flexible tenancies in existence—and Parliament’s proposal to make such tenancies mandatory (under the Housing and Planning Act 2016) has never been brought into force.’
Tanfield Chambers, 11th August 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘A landlord under a fixed-term flexible tenancy did not have any right to determine the tenancy prior to the expiry of the fixed term because the tenancy agreement did not contain a forfeiture clause. The tenancy did not fall within the ambit of s82(1)(b) Housing Act 1985 and the landlord could only seek possession under s107D at the end of the fixed term.’
Tanfield Chambers, 30th June 2020
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic Parliament has been, and continues to be, very active. This note provides a quick update in relation to the latest developments on four fronts: (1) forfeiture; (2) CRAR; (3) insolvency; (4) planning.’
Falcon Chambers, 29th June 2020
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘It is a basic rule of English law that a person who kills someone should not inherit from their victim. The justification behind the rule, known as the forfeiture rule, is that a person should not benefit from their crimes and therefore forfeits entitlement. Many other jurisdictions have the same basic rule for fundamental reasons of public policy, including the need to avoid incentivising homicide. Importantly, however, Parliament passed the Forfeiture Act 1982 to give courts in England and Wales discretion to modify the application of the rule in certain cases, so that some people could inherit from those they had killed after all. Such modification is also possible in some other jurisdictions: It allows judges to consider individual circumstances where the blanket application of a forfeiture rule would cause injustice.’
OUP Blog, 3rd July 2020
Source: blog.oup.com
‘An Upper Tribunal appeal of an FTT decision that the leaseholder, Ms M, was in breach of lease, and specifically a restriction “Not to do or permit or suffer in or upon the Demised Premises or any part thereof any illegal or immoral act or any act or thing which may be or may become a nuisance or annoyance or cause damage to the Lessors or the tenants of the Lessor or the occupiers of any part of the Building.”’
Nearly Legal, 1st July 2020
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023