Alexander Bunzl successfully obtained an injunction & defended his client from an attempted forfeiture of a commercial tenancy
In this matter, the tenant had incurred rent arrears in respect of its car park. The landlord responded by constructing bollards to block the entrance to the car park, despite the tenant having paid the arrears. Alexander advised the tenant on applying for an urgent injunction and represented the tenant in a fully contested hearing. He was successful in obtaining an injunction for the landlord to remove the bollards and refrain from blocking the car park. The Court made a declaration that the landlord had not forfeited the lease and ordered the landlord to pay counsel’s costs in full.
This case reinforces the principle that allowing rent to fall into arrears for more than 21 days only renders the tenant’s interest liable to forfeiture. A landlord still has to exercise an option to determine it by some unequivocal act showing an intention to end it (Toleman v Portbury (1871) LR6QB 245, 250). The tenant was able to avoid forfeiture in this case by showing that it had paid back the arrears before the landlord made an unequivocal act. Moreover, the Court heard the decision in Relvok Properties v Dixon (1972) 25 P&CR 1 that entry to secure the premises is not sufficient, and it considered the construction of bollards to be a form of ‘securing the premises’ rather than re-entering and taking possession.
The case is a reminder of the importance of acting promptly where a landlord is alleging forfeiture. The tenant instructed counsel as the situation was unfolding and obtained the injunction within a week of the events described.
