Chandless-Chandless v Nicholson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1942 |
| Year | 1942 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Landlord and tenant - Lease - Relief from forfeiture - Conditional order - Conditions to be complied with within specified time - Failure to comply with conditions within specified time - Extension of time for compliance - Practice - Consent order - Form.
Where an order for relief against forfeiture of a lease is granted to a tenant on terms to be performed within a specified time, the court has jurisdiction to extend that time if circumstances are brought to its notice which would make it just and equitable that extension should be granted. Where on all equitable grounds a period of limitation ought in fairness to be extended and its extension will do no more than apply the principle that the condition of re-entry is no more than security for the rent, there is no reason why equity should not lend its aid and extend the period. This is so although the order which prescribes the limitation of time does not give the tenant liberty to apply.
If an order is made by consent it should on the face of it invariably be expressed so to have been made.
APPEAL from Asquith J.
The plaintiff was the ground landlord of a dwelling-house, the applicant, Mrs. Wimborne, being the tenant under a lease for a term of sixty-five years from Michaelmas, 1889, at a rent of 12 l. a year. Mrs. Wimborne sublet the house to three tenants each of whom occupied part of the house. She went abroad and made default in payment of the half-year's ground rent due March 25, 1940. The plaintiff had difficulty in tracing her, and on June 11, 1940, he obtained judgment in an action against the defendant, one of the sub-tenants, for possession. Later, Mrs. Wimborne applied for relief against forfeiture, and on September 12, 1941, an order was made by Master Ball granting that relief on the terms that within three months she should pay the outstanding ground rent amounting to 18 l., the taxed costs of the action for possession, and the taxed costs of the application for relief; should discharge the liability under the War Damage Act; and, by para. 5, should “deal and dispose of the claim for schedule A.” Mrs. Wimborne complied with the terms except such part of the sch. A tax as was referable to her beneficial interest in the lease, with regard to which tax she had claims for relief which, it was arranged, should stand over, and so it was not disposed of within the three months specified in the terms. In March, 1942, the plaintiff paid the sch. A tax without reference to any tax reliefs to which Mrs. Wimborne might have been entitled, and he did not inform her or her advisers that he had done so until later. On May 12, 1942, Mrs. Wimborne took out a summons asking for relief against forfeiture simpliciter. The summons came before Master Baker, and it was proposed on behalf of Mrs. Wimborne that the period of three months specified in the original order should be extended in view of the fact that the tax claim was standing over by arrangement. Master Baker took the view that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application because Master Ball's order did not in terms reserve liberty to apply. Mrs. Wimborne then took out a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Syarikat Marak Jaya Sdn Bhd v Syarikat Masinda Sdn Bhd
- Tuan Haji Ahmed Abdul Rahman v Arab Malaysian Finance Berhad
-
Starside Properties Ltd v Mustapha
...a contract to purchase land, and this wasfollowed by the Privy Council in Kilmer -v- British Columbia (1913 A.C. p. 319). 15 Chandleas-Chandless -v- Nicholson (1942 2 K.B. p. 321) related, as Judge Fife stressed, to relief from forfeiture for non-payment of rent, this court holding that w......
-
Siebe Gorman & Company Ltd v Pneupac Ltd
...it is ambiguous. There are two meanings to the words "by consent". That was observed by Lord Greene, M.R. in the case of Chandless-Chandless v. Nicholson (1942) 2 King's Bench 321 at page 324. One meaning is this: The words "by consent" may evidence a real contract between the parties. In s......
-
Preliminary Sections
.... • . . .264 Carstairs v. Taylor, (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 217. . . ........ . . • . . 299 • . . . . 44 Chandless - Chandless v. Nicholson (1942) 2 K.B. 321 at 324. . Cheko V. Kano N.A., High Court of Northern Nigeria, Suit No. K/49/66, unreported. • • • • . " . . . . . . . . . ..... . • . . . . .......