Landlords re-entering premises and claiming possession — Assignees of lease breaching covenants — Forfeiture — Whether courts could grant relief — High Court refusing tenants’ application for relief — Order for possession — Date of effect of order — Costs — Whether costs should be awarded against tenant on a standard or indemnity basis — Costs awarded on standard basis
On July 29 1993 the landlords obtained a possession order of 17 Gledhow Gardens, London SW5: see [1993] EGCS 150. That order had followed on a decision of the House of Lords that an application for relief from forfeiture could be renewed before the High Court: see [1992] 1 EGLR 43. The present application followed an adjournment to discuss the terms of the order. As the issue on possession was common ground, the parties’ arguments turned on when possession should be ordered to take effect from. The issue of costs was also dealt with, the landlords arguing that as the judge had been critical of the tenants’ behaviour, costs on an indemnity basis would be appropriate.
Held Applications dealt with; inquiry to be made as to damages for breach of covenant and trespass.
1. The order would be that the plaintiff landlords were to recover possession of the property four weeks from the hearing date, ie October 4.
2. Although the court had been critical of the tenants’ behaviour, their conduct fell just short of the kind of behaviour which would attract an order for costs on an indemnity basis, therefore they would be dealt with on a standard basis.
3. With regard to the costs on the renewal of the application for relief, the House of Lords stated that the parties would be at liberty to adduce further evidence so that the judge could consider the propriety of granting relief. The costs of the original hearing of all the issues by the trial judge and the costs of the renewed application would be at the discretion of the judge who heard it. At the original hearing Mummery J had said that there had been no jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture because the landlords had re-entered the premises; if he were wrong about that, he would have granted relief from forfeiture, but on terms that the tenants paid the landlords’ costs of the hearing on an indemnity basis: see [1991] 1 EGLR 36. However, if Mummery J had had the benefit of the House of Lords’ judgment he would have held otherwise on the jurisdiction issue. In light of the further evidence, it was appropriate to regard the landlords as having been substantially successful before Mummery J. In the circumstances the landlord should have a proportion of one-half of their costs on a standard basis.
Gordon Bennett (instructed by Frere Cholmeley Bishoff) appeared for the landlords; Michael Driscoll QC (instructed by Gouldens) appeared for the tenants.
