A Court of Appeal probe has been launched into the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant relief from forfeiture of a lease to a person entitled to a charging order over a leasehold interest, where the tenant himself does not apply for relief.
The point has arisen in a challenge by the holder of charging orders over the interests of two previous joint tenants of restaurant premises at 54/56 The Parade, Bourne End, Buckinghamshire, to a decision by Deputy Chancery Division Judge Peter Leaver QC in April last year, that the court had no jurisdiction to grant forfeiture relief.
The claimant in the proceedings, Davinia Bland, brought the claim for relief not as a tenant, but as a judgment creditor of previous tenants, Franco and Caroline Beer, with charging orders over the old lease at the time of the forfeiture. The Beers lease was forfeited by peaceable re-entry for non-payment of rent in April 1996.
Landlords of the premises, Ingrams Estates Limited, negotiated the grant of a new lease immediately after the old lease was forfeited to new tenants, Fogir Uddin and Ripon Fogir Uddin, who knew the Beers were the tenants under the old lease, but made no searches against the Land Charges Registry and did not discover the registration of the claimants charging order.
Robert Denman, counsel for the claimant, Davinia Bland, argued in the Appeal Court that the court did have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.
However, Timothy Fancourt, counsel for the landlords, argued that the High Court was right to dismiss the claim on the grounds that to grant it would, among other things, have caused substantial prejudice to the Uddins legitimate financial and business interests.
The hearing continues.
Bland v Ingrams Estates Limited and others Court of Appeal (Nourse, Chadwick & Hale LJJ) 10 October 2000
Robert Denman (instructed by Joseph Aaron & Co, of Ilford) appeared for the appellant; Timothy Fancourt (instructed by Collyer Bristow) appeared for the first respondent landlord; Justin Althaus (instructed by Armstrong & Co) appeared for the second and third respondent tenants.
PLS News 11/10/00
