Forfeiture of a lease

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 27 October 2025. For guidance regarding the Act’s impact on residential tenancies in England, see Practice Note: Renters' Rights Act 2025—key provisions.

Right to forfeit

A right to forfeit gives the landlord an option to end the lease in certain circumstances. The right to forfeit must either:

  1. be provided for as an express term of the lease; for example, the lease may provide, in a re-entry or forfeiture clause, that the landlord is entitled to forfeit the lease due to specified breaches of covenant (for example, failure to pay rent within 14 or 21 days of the due date) or on the occurrence of a specific event detailed in the lease (for example any type of insolvency specified as an event giving rise to the right to forfeiture), or

  2. (if there is no express provision in the lease) have arisen due to a breach by the tenant of an express or implied condition (forfeiture for breach of condition), ie a term of the lease which is so fundamental to that lease that breach

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property Disputes News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

View Property Disputes by content type :

Popular documents