High Court Appeal success for Rachel Coyle in relief from forfeiture case

February 26, 2025

Rachel Coyle from Exchange Chambers has successfully represented her landlord client in a case at the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Chancery Appeals (ChD) in London. The Appeal is a modern day reaffirmation of the legal position set out in Bland v Ingrams Estates Ltd (No 2) [2001] EWCA Civ 1088 about the conditions that can be attached to a relief from forfeiture claim concerning a commercial premises.

The case was an appeal from a decision made by HH Judge Saunders following a hearing on 22 February 2024.

In his reserved judgment dated 8 March 2024, the Judge granted relief from forfeiture to the Respondent tenant, Mr Malik, following a peaceable re-entry of demised commercial property by the Claimant landlord, Mr Sik, on grounds of non-payment of rent, on condition that Mr Malik should pay full rent arrears plus interest to the date of the peaceable re-entry and half the rent plus interest from the date of peaceable re-entry to the date on which possession was regained. The Judge also conflated the costs of peaceable re-entry with the legal costs associated with the relief claim and a strike out application issued in a connected (and now stayed) renewal claim.

At the heart of the appeal was the question of whether the Judge was right to exercise his discretion to require a payment of only 50% of the rent arrears since the date of re-entry as a condition of relief, and to conflate legal costs with the peaceable re-entry costs.

Rachel Coyle, instructed by CGS Legal acted for the Appellant, Mr Sik.

Mrs Justice Joanna Smith found that the judge was wrong to reduce the rent to 50% and that the relief conditions should have involved payment by Mr Malik of the entire rent for the period from the date of peaceable re-entry to the date of relief, payment by Mr Malik of interest on that rent, payment by Mr Malik of the costs of peaceable re-entry together with the reasonable costs incurred in the forfeiture proceedings. She also reopened the matter of costs and apportioned costs on an issue-by-issue basis. This involved looking at the difficulties of consenting to a claim for relief from forfeiture as identified in Zestcrest Ltd v County Hall Green Ventures Ltd [2011] 3 EGLR 9 and how waiver may operate.

To read the full judgment please click here.