When it comes to forfeiture for reasons other than non-payment of rent, the case of Crawford v Clarke [2000] EGCS 33 demonstrates, rather than decides, that: (a) the trial judge is not obliged to grant an indefinite number of time extensions for the tenant to comply with conditions for relief; and (b) if and when the judge decides that enough is enough and makes an unconditional order for possession, then his decision, being made in the exercise of a discretion, is unlikely to be upset on appeal.
In Crawford, the refusal of the judge to allow a third application for extra time to complete a schedule of works was held to be a proper exercise of his discretion, notwithstanding that repossession would bring a substantial windfall for the landlord, and even though the works were almost complete. Although describing the order as “unusual”, the court was satisfied that the order had been made only after the judge had carefully weighed the tenant’s conduct against factors that would have normally furnished a strong case for granting a further extension.
For the brighter law student: what difference, if any, would it have made if the judge had started the day with Kelloggs?
Start your free trial today
Your trusted daily source of commercial real estate news and analysis. Register now for unlimited digital access throughout April.
Including:
- Breaking news, interviews and market updates
- Expert legal commentary, market trends and case law
- In-depth reports and data-led analysis
When it comes to forfeiture for reasons other than non-payment of rent, the case of Crawford v Clarke [2000] EGCS 33 demonstrates, rather than decides, that: (a) the trial judge is not obliged to grant an indefinite number of time extensions for the tenant to comply with conditions for relief; and (b) if and when the judge decides that enough is enough and makes an unconditional order for possession, then his decision, being made in the exercise of a discretion, is unlikely to be upset on appeal.
In Crawford, the refusal of the judge to allow a third application for extra time to complete a schedule of works was held to be a proper exercise of his discretion, notwithstanding that repossession would bring a substantial windfall for the landlord, and even though the works were almost complete. Although describing the order as “unusual”, the court was satisfied that the order had been made only after the judge had carefully weighed the tenant’s conduct against factors that would have normally furnished a strong case for granting a further extension.
For the brighter law student: what difference, if any, would it have made if the judge had started the day with Kelloggs?
