Public Trustee v Westbrook
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Civ J0712-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 12 July 1965 |
[1965] EWCA Civ J0712-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From the vice-Chancellor
County Palatine of Lancaster
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Danckwerts and
Lord Justice Winn
MR G. H. NEWSOM, Q. C. and MR L. J. PORTER (instructed by Messrs Manches & Co., Agents for Messrs David Blank Alexander & Co., Manchester) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.
MR PETER FOSTER, Q. C. and MR JAMES FITZHUGH (instructed by Messrs Lambert & Smith, Manchester) appeared as Counsel for the Respondent.
This case raises a question as to a bombed site Manchester, namely, whether a person who has bought an under-lease should be able to obtain relief from forfeiture. Before the war the site wag covered by about 15 houses. The freeholder was the Earl of Derby. A head lease for 999 years had been granted from 1853 of this site of 15 houses at a rent of £22. 5s.0d. a year. The head lease is now vested in the Public Trustee who has, from the beginning until now, always paid this rent of £22. 5s.0d. to the Earl of Derby's estate. Out of that head lease there was granted a sub-lease of five of the sites of the houses for 990 years from 1853 at £615 a year. The holder of that sub-lease is unknown: he has disappeared. Out of that sub-lease, in 1897 there was granted a sub-sub-lease of two of the houses covering a site of 195 square yards at a ground rent of £8 a year. Until recently that sub-sub-lease was vested in a Brewery Company. I expect that before the war the Brewery Company let the houses to occupiers who held sub-sub-sub-leases of the houses.
In 1940 or thereabouts the whole area was bombed by the enemy. The houses were completely demolished. It became a bombed site. From that time onwards, so far as the evidence shows, no rent was payable by any of the occupiers or sub-sublessees or sub-lessees at all. The only person who paid any rent was the Public Trustee who was paying £22. 5s.0d. to the Earl of Derby's estate. That went on for over 20 years until at the end of 1962 or the beginning of 1963 the Public Trustee determined to sell the whole area, that is, the sites of the 15 houses. He agreed to sell them to a Mr Lawrence for the sum of £1, 600. He entered into a contract for the purpose, but Mr Lawrence's solicitor, so as to safeguard his client, managed to get a clause inserted requiring the Public Trustee to see that the under-leases were extinguished.
Now, unbeknown to the Public Trustee's solicitor or to Mr Lawrence's solicitor something had happened, in theprevious year. In the middle of 1962 Mr Westbrook had bought up from the Brewery Company the sub-sub-lease of the sites of two of the houses, the 195 square yards, at 38 a year ground rent. He paid a nominal sum of £80 for that sub-sub-lease. Mr Westbrook knew at the time no rent had been paid since 1940. So it was in danger of forfeiture. In order to clear up the position, the Public Trustee took out forfeiture proceedings against Mr Westbrook on the ground of non-payment of rent. He claimed possession. To this claim Mr Westbrook in law had no answer. All the facts were admitted. The only thing that Mr Westbrook could do was to claim relief from forfeiture. He said he was perfectly willing not merely to pay £8 a year on hie sub-sub-lease but to pay 315 a year on the sub-lease ahead of it, which comprised the five houses. He said that the ordinary principles in the case of forfeiture for non payment of rent, as settled by the cases, were these: that on payment of all the rent in arrear and payment of all the costs. and, furthermore, provision being made for...
To continue reading
Request your trial