Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
Grimason was a case where the landlord obtained forfeiture of a lease on the basis that the tenant had not paid ground rent totalling £600. Grimason had bought the flat in 2006 for £100,000. She didn’t attend the forfeiture proceedings because, on her case, she had not been aware of them due to a failure properly to serve her with them. The forfeiture order was made in June 2011. Nine months later the landlord sold the flat for circa £100,000.
Needless to say Grimason appealed. Her submissions on failure to serve were rejected. So were her arguments that the forfeiture hearing had not been a ‘trial’ as such and so her seeking of relief from the forfeiture order should be considered under CPR 3.9 (relief from sanctions) and not the stricter CPR 39.3(5) failure to attend trial criteria. Grimason failed on all counts – see our report below.
But! What was really interesting from my perspective was that the end result was, in effect, that the landlord ‘recovered’ £100,000 to satisfy a debt of £600. That’s arguably something of a windfall. Grimason had tried to argue unjust enrichment and restitution but these failed. She then tried to argue that the result was so disproportionate as to amount to a decision that no reasonable tribunal could have come to (Wednesbury principles) and a breach of her Human Rights (Human Rights Act 1998, Article 1 of the First Protocol: right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions). Disappointingly, in dismissing this ground of appeal the judge simply stated it lacked merit without providing further analysis. A bit more flesh on the bones of his reasoning might have been a bit helpful.
Of course, there’s no guarantee the landlord’s subsequent sale would result in such a ‘windfall’ – markets could have been falling, but the fact remains he did rather seem to come out on top to a significant degree. Was that the right, fair, proportionate result? Does it matter? What do you think? Leave us a comment below.
Meantime, I’m off to check I’ve paid my ground rent/whether I can forfeit my tenant’s £400,000 lease for failing to pay £200 ground rent – delete as applicable…
Click image to read full report. This report was first published by LexisPSL. If you are not a subscriber, please click here to find out more and to access a free trial.
0330 161 1234