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
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in LSREF III Wight Ltd v Gateley LLP, a case which concerned a forfeiture clause in a lease and whether the claimant had unreasonably failed to mitigate its loss. John de Waal QC, barrister at Hardwicke Chambers, says the case shows that judges want to achieve a fair result.
LSREF III Wight Ltd v Gateley LLP  EWCA Civ 359,  All ER (D) 145 (Apr)
The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the defendant solicitors’ firm’s appeal and allowed the claimant’s cross appeal from an order made after the quantum only trial of a professional negligence claim against the defendant. The judge had made an error of principle in having confined his assessment of loss to the transaction date, rather than the trial date and none of the judge’s reasons justified the conclusion that the claimant had not unreasonably failed to mitigate its loss. Nonetheless, the defendant was liable for the full cost which the claimant had incurred in curing a defect in a lease, albeit after trial, in the sum of £157,100.
In 2007 Gateley provided a report on title to a subsidiary of AIB who were considering lending £1.1m to a special purposed vehicle (SPV), Method Investments Ltd, against the security of various properties including a 199-year lease of a mixed use development in Leicester. Gateley negligently (as it admitted) failed to advise the bank about the forfeiture clause in the lease which provided for the lease to be forfeited in an insolvency event—in passing, it is surprising both that Gateley missed the point and that the bank was not aware that this is a standard provision in commercial leases. This reduced the value of the legal charge as security, as the bank appreciated when it came to enforce its security in 2012.
The claimant, which had taken an assignment of the bank’s cause of action, sued Gateley for damages for negligence. The freeholder offered to vary the lease for a price of £150,000 which Gateley offered to pay. The claimant declined the offer. At trial it was argued that the claimant had acted unreasonably in failing to mitigate its loss. The judge rejected that argument and awarded the claimant damages of £240,000—part of which it promptly used to pay the freeholder £150,000 and mitigate its loss.
The Court of Appeal had to decide two things:
The argument for the claimant on the first point was that events happening after the date of the transaction were collateral (in the old language, res inter alios acta) and thus the claimant did not have to credit Gateley for the benefit it had obtained when it obtained the variation of the lease. It argued that that the question of whether it had mitigated its loss was a matter of fact the judge had been entitled to decide as he did and that negotiating with the freeholder was a complex and risky business, so it should not be criticised for not achieving the result it later achieved at an earlier date.
As is often the case, the judgment did not summarise the arguments of the successful party, Gateley, in any detail—since they are subsumed into the court’s reasoning—but it is clear that Gateley pointed out the obvious fact that the deal it had been prepared to fund before trial was made very quickly after trial, and that this should be taken into account when assessing the claimant’s relevant recoverable loss.
The leading case on the question of how and when one quantifies loss caused by a negligent report on title remains the decision of the House of Lords in Nykredit Mortgage Bank plc v Edward Erdman  1 All ER 305. The Court of Appeal referred to this and held that the best date for quantification of transaction loss in a lender’s negligence claim against solicitors is the trial date. It then went further and decided to calculate the loss at the date of the appeal hearing, taking into account the facts then known—that the lease had been rectified at a cost of £150,000.
On the mitigation point it decided that the judge’s conclusions could not be justified—the offer to vary the lease was there, the benefit exceeded the outlay and the bank was in funds to pay the freeholder. It was unreasonable to reject the offer.
The judgment reminds us of two things:
Quite simply, judges want to reach a fair result. The effect of the judgment in this case was to over compensate the claimant at Gateley’s expense. In a lender’s claim, consider loss at the date of trial and be very careful before rejecting an offer by the defendant—or its insurers—to fund a mitigation exercise.
It may be considered surprising that the 199 year lease contained the forfeiture clause providing for forfeiture on an insolvency event and that this was not picked up in later due diligence. Long leases (which usually have a minimal ground rent) are considered more akin to freeholds and so often do not include forfeiture clauses—reflected perhaps in the landlord’s willingness to vary the lease (for a price). However, many do include forfeiture clauses—though often providing for forfeiture only on material breach of the lease covenants. Even then, a mortgagee should ensure that the lease contains ‘mortgage cure rights’.
A mortgagee can apply for relief from forfeiture. It claims relief as if acting as a subtenant.
In cases of forfeiture for breaches of covenant (other than non-payment of rent), the court has a discretion to grant a mortgagee of the property relief from forfeiture or to make a vesting order.
However, these rights of relief are only of potential use if the mortgagee is aware that forfeiture is in hand. The landlord is under no obligation to notify the mortgagee of its intentions or to serve it with a copy of any notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Therefore, a mortgagee may not find out about forfeiture of its security until it is too late.
A mortgage cure or mortgagee protection clause:
John de Waal QC is a barrister specialising in property and professional negligence(@johndewaalqc).
Interviewed by Anne Bruce.
The views of our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
If you are a LexisPSL subscriber, click the link below for further information:
Insolvency issues for landlords
Lifting the administration moratorium—for forfeiture
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
0330 161 1234