Croydon London Borough Council v Kalonga (2020) EWHC 1353 (QB) – Tanfield Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 30th June 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Coronavirus and property: keep taking the medicine – Falcon Chambers

‘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.’

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, 29th June 2020

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Why victims can sometimes inherit from their abusers- even if they kill them – OUP Blog

‘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.’

Full Story

OUP Blog, 3rd July 2020

Source: blog.oup.com

Adventures in forfeiture – brothels and specifying the breach – Nearly Legal

‘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.”’

Full Story

Nearly Legal, 1st July 2020

Source: nearlylegal.co.uk

Landlord’s knowledge of breach: waiver of forfeiture Faiz v Burnley BC [2020] EWCA 407 (Ch); 2 WLUK 318 (Ch D) – St Ives Chambers

Posted July 1st, 2020 in appeals, chambers articles, covenants, forfeiture, landlord & tenant, news, rent by sally

‘The High Court in Faiz considered the interrelationship between a landlord’s knowledge and the date of accrual of a tenant’s liability and their effect on waiver of forfeiture.’

Full Story

St Ives Chambers, June 2020

Source: www.stiveschambers.co.uk

Waiver of the right to forfeit – Hardwicke Chambers

‘The recent case of Faiz & Ors v Burnley Borough Council [2020] EWHC 407 (Ch) provides clarity on a tricky practical issue: when can a landlord accept monies after it gains knowledge of its right to forfeit?’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 17th June 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Croydon LBC v Kalonga [2020] EWHC 1353 (QB) Tipples J – Landmark Chambers

‘A flexible tenancy is a species of secure tenancy which is granted for a fixed term of at least two years (s.107A-D, Housing Act 1985). At the end of the fixed term, the landlord has a mandatory ground for possession (s.107D). During the fixed term, commentators have differed on how the landlord can terminate the tenancy. In Flexible Tenancies and Forfeiture, [2014] Journal of Housing Law 17 (Andrew Dymond), it was suggested that the tenancy needed to include a forfeiture clause and the fixed term needed to be terminated by way of forfeiture (see s.82(3), 1985 Act). By contrast, in In a Fix New Law Journal, 29 June 2012 (Jon Holbrook), it was suggested that a flexible tenancy could be determined in the same manner as a periodic secure tenancy, i.e. by the landlord obtaining and executing an order for possession.’

Full Story

Landmark Chambers, 2nd June 2020

Source: www.landmarkchambers.co.uk

Wife who beat husband to death with a hammer permitted to inherit his estate: Challen v Challen [2020] EWHC 1330 (Ch) – New Square Chambers

‘On 15 August 2010 Sally Challen beat her husband to death with a hammer, wrapped him in a curtain before washing the dishes and driving home. She was convicted of murder on 23 June 2011 and sentenced to life imprisonment, but last year that conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal. Before the retrial the Crown accepted a guilty plea to a lesser charge of Manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, and Mrs Challen was released, having already served her sentence. The Forfeiture rule prevented her inheriting her husband’s estate or taking their joint assets by succession, and in September 2019 she issued proceedings under the Forfeiture Act 1982 for relief.’

Full Story

New Square Chambers, June 2020

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

High Court judge hands down ruling on secure flexible tenancies and possession during fixed term – Local Government Lawyer

A landlord cannot determine a flexible tenancy prior to the expiry of its fixed term without a forfeiture clause even in the event of default by the tenant, the High Court has ruled.

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 4th June 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Relief from Forfeiture following Manslaughter: Challen v Challen [2020] EWHC 1330 (Ch) – Hardwicke Chambers

‘In this recent case, described by the presiding judge HHJ Matthews as “extraordinary [with] a fatal combination of conditions and events”, relief from forfeiture was granted despite the applicant having pleaded guilty to manslaughter with a resulting sentence of over nine years of imprisonment.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 29th May 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Causing the death of another and the Forfeiture Rule: Amos v Mancini [2020] EWHC 1063 (Ch) – New Square Chambers

Posted May 29th, 2020 in dangerous driving, forfeiture, married persons, news, wills by sally

‘In January 2019 Mrs Amos, aged 74, was driving with her husband near their home in Llandeilo, when they collided with the car in front. Her husband later died from his injuries and Mrs Amos pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and was given a suspended prison sentence and disqualified from driving. The question arose whether she was prevented from benefitting under her husband’s will, or from receiving by survivorship his share of their home, which was owned as beneficial joint tenants.’

Full Story

New Square Chambers, 12th May 2020

Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk

Coercive Control and the consequences of forfeiture – Challen v Challen [2020] EWHC 1330 – St John’s Chambers

‘Sally Challen’s case has become well known in recent years, as a miscarriage of justice that resulted in a woman spending years behind bars for an offence she did not commit. The facts were not in dispute. In August 2010 she had reconciled with Richard, her partner and husband of forty years, after previously leaving the matrimonial home and starting divorce proceedings. Over lunch, she beat him to death with a hammer. Subsequently dissuaded from committing suicide, she was convicted of his murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, with the prosecution describing her as jealous and possessive, and the jury rejecting her defence of diminished responsibility. In 2019 the Court of Appeal allowed her appeal, quashed her conviction, and directed a re-trial to reconsider the defences of diminished responsibility and provocation, in the light of new expert evidence about the effect of coercive control in a relationship. Richard had behaved appallingly towards Slly during their relationship. Finally in September 2019 the Crown accepted the plea that Sally Challen had offered throughout, that of guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Edis J sentenced her to 9 years and 4 months imprisonment, with the effect that she was immediately released.’

Full Story

St John's Chambers, 28th May 2020

Source: www.stjohnschambers.co.uk

Does CRAR mean the right to forfeiture is waived? Commercial landlords should carefully consider their options… – Tanfield Chambers

Posted April 21st, 2020 in chambers articles, forfeiture, landlord & tenant, leases, news, rent by sally

‘The procedure by which a landlord may recover arrears of rent in relation to commercial premises was fundamentally changed several years ago. Chapter 2 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 abolished the common law right to distrain for arrears of rent, replacing it with the commercial rent arrears recovery procedure (‘CRAR’). But what has been the impact of this change on whether a landlord taking enforcement action to recover arrears waived his right to forfeiture of a lease?’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 9th April 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Coronavirus: residential possessions and lease forfeiture proceedings – Becket Chambers

‘The Coronavirus Act 2020 has put a hold on any existing residential possession proceedings for a period of 90 days and extended the notice period required as a precursor for any new residential possession to three months (section 81 of the Act and Practice Direction 51Z) and removed the right of re-entry or forfeiture for business tenancies for non-payment of rent until (at present) the 30th June 2020 (section 82).’

Full Story

Becket Chambers, 3rd April 2020

Source: becket-chambers.co.uk

Changing the locks during lockdown:The Coronavirus Act 2020, Commercial Property and Forfeiture – 3PB

Posted April 14th, 2020 in chambers articles, coronavirus, forfeiture, landlord & tenant, news by sally

‘In recent years the rise of e-commerce has challenged the traditional High Street model as we know it. The high attrition rates on the High Street have been widely reported. For those retailers who have sought to avoid closing their businesses, Company Voluntary Agreements (“CVA’s”) have become popular in order to allow shops to keep trading.’

Full Story

3PB, 9th April 2020

Source: www.3pb.co.uk

Martha Timbo v The Mayor and Burgess of the London Borough of Lambeth [2019] EWHC 1396 (Ch) – Tanfield Chambers

‘In a claim for relief from forfeiture the High Court refused to order relief where there was no good reason for delay beyond 6 months from re-entry, whether this resulted in a windfall for the landlord was irrelevant to the question of promptness.’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 25th February 2020

Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk

Case Comment: The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (Formerly General Motors UK Ltd) [2019] UKSC 46 – UKSC Blog

Posted February 24th, 2020 in appeals, canals, forfeiture, leases, news, rent, Supreme Court by sally

‘In this case comment, Michael Cox of CMS comments on the judgment handed down in the matter of The Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v Vauxhall Motors Ltd (Formerly General Motors UK Ltd) [2019] UKSC 46. Michael is a senior associate in the Real Estate Dispute team at CMS. Michael advises on all aspects of property law, with a particular emphasis on development advice and dispute resolution.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 21st February 2020

Source: ukscblog.com

Lessons learned from account forfeiture proceedings (NCA v Vlad Luca Filat) – 5 SAH

Posted January 16th, 2020 in bribery, corruption, forfeiture, money laundering, news by sally

‘The Crown Court dismissed Vlad Luca Filat’s appeal against the decision to forfeit £500,000 held in three bank accounts in his name. The court held that the money derived from bribery and corruption offences committed by the appellant’s father, the former prime minister of Moldova, and was obtained by money laundering. The case was the National Crime Agency’s first contested account forfeiture application. James Fletcher, barrister at 5SAH Chambers, who appeared for the National Crime Agency, suggests that these types of applications are likely to be deployed more and more often.’

Full Story

5 SAH, 14th January 2020

Source: www.5sah.co.uk

Account freezing orders: at what cost? – Doughty Street Chambers

Posted December 10th, 2019 in banking, forfeiture, news, proceeds of crime by sally

‘Last week, the National Crime Agency deployed account freezing orders to secure £190 million held in the UK. Malik Riaz, a property developer and one of the biggest employers in Pakistan, reportedly agreed to pay £190 million in order to conclude an investigation into the funds[1]. The agreement followed the obtaining, in August 2019, of eight account freezing orders at Westminster City Magistrates’ Court in connection with funds held in the UK totalling around £120 million (the final settlement includes a UK property valued at £50 million). The assets are to be returned to the State of Pakistan.’

Full Story

Doughty Street Chambers, 10th December 2019

Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk

Relief from the forfeiture of a licence – Guildhall Chambers

Posted November 20th, 2019 in forfeiture, landlord & tenant, leases, news by sally

‘Traditionally it has been supposed that only tenants of leases could obtain relief from forfeiture; Grays’
Elements of Land Law 5th Ed. §4.1.69:
Only a tenant – and not a licensee – may ask for relief against forfeiture.
This has just been reversed by the Supreme Court (23rd October 2019).’

Full Story

Guildhall Chambers, 7th November 2019

Source: www.guildhallchambers.co.uk