Legal News

Forfeiture for unauthorised change of use to residential (Zash v Mayworth)

Published on: 25 January 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Forfeiture for unauthorised change of use to residential (Zash v Mayworth)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Property Disputes analysis: In Zash Properties Ltd v Mayworth Ltd, His Honour Judge (HHJ) Johns QC found that a 999 year lease of a shop had been validly forfeited for change of use to two studio flats. The change of use was in breach of a covenant not to change user without the landlord’s consent (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld). The main issues were (i) whether the conversion to residential meant that section 168 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) applied, so as to invalidate any notice served pursuant to section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925) without first obtaining an admission or determination of breach, and (ii) whether a condition of relief should be the reinstatement to commercial use, because of the extra statutory rights that apply to residential long leases. The judge found in favour of the landlord on both points, holding that the lease had been validly forfeited and granting relief on condition that the premises were reinstated to commercial use. Written by David Peachey, barrister, at Hardwicke. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents