Landlord giving notice to terminate lease under break clause – Defendants claiming lease not terminated by virtue of agricultural tenancy – Defendants’ claim struck out as abuse of process – Plaintiffs purchasing land and seeking injunctions preventing defendants from commencing proceedings without leave of court and entering registrations at HM Land Registry – Application granted
In 1946 Redland Aggregates Ltd, (Redland), acquired land in Broxbournebury, Herts, and from 1960 the defendants ran a riding school on part of the land. In 1987 Redland granted the defendants a lease dated March 5 1990 for a term from December 14 1989 to December 12 1999. The lease contained a break clause whereby it could be determined by not less than six months’ notice. In 1992 Redland applied for planning permission. The defendants asserted, inter alia, that they had acquired rights of way through the woodland which lay in the path of the proposed access road.
In July 1994 Redland served a notice under the break clause whereby the lease was to expire on January 1 1995 and obtained a declaration that the only right to which the defendants were entitled was a leasehold right of way which was to terminate with the lease. On January 1 1995 the defendants refused to give up possession claiming that they had an agricultural tenancy. Redland obtained summary judgment for possession and a writ of possession was executed. Subsequently Redland sold a majority of its land to the first plaintiff. On an application for registration it was discovered that the defendants had lodged a caution at HM Land Registry on the basis that they had an agricultural tenancy. An order was obtained for the vacation of the registration. The first plaintiff transferred some of the land to the second plaintiff, and each plaintiff built houses on the land which they then put up for sale. In March 1997 the first defendant brought an action seeking a declaration that the lease had not been properly terminated, and cautions were lodged based on the proceedings. The action was struck out as an abuse of process and it was ordered, inter alia, that the caution be vacated and leave to appeal be refused. The plaintiffs sought an injunction restraining both the commencement of further proceedings by the defendants without leave of the court and the entering of registrations. The application against the second defendant was withdrawn by agreement.
Held The plaintiffs’ application was granted.
1. The court had jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining further proceedings by defendants without leave of the court where plaintiffs would become involved in litigation which would constitute an abuse of process. If the first defendant commenced further proceedings they would be based on allegations that the lease was not terminated, and such proceedings would be an abuse of process because they had previously been struck out as vexatious and an abuse of process.
2. The court had jurisdiction to order an injunction against the entering of registrations at HM Land Registry under section 56 of the Land Registration Act 1925 and it was appropriate that the plaintiffs had protection against the risk and inconvenience of having to suffer further adverse entries being made. Therefore it was appropriate to grant the relief sought.
Christopher Nugee (instructed by Slaughter & May) appeared for the plaintiffs; the first defendant appeared in person and was not represented.
