Bland v Ingram's Estates Ltd
Bland v Ingram's Estates Ltd
- 2001
- Estates Gazette [2001] 24 EG 163-174(12) .
CA 21 December 2000. The claimant (C) surrendered the lease of a restaurant to the first defendant landlord (I), who then granted a new lease to Mr & Mrs B (B) who in turn agreed to pay C for the business in instalments. When B failed to pay certain instalments C obtained summary judgement against them and, later, two charging orders which were registered pursuant to the Land Charges Act 1972. After the lease was forfeited for arrears of rent a new lease was granted to the second (U) and third (F) defendants. C then brought an application, which was dismissed, for relief from forfeiture whilst an injunction was granted against U on cross-undertakings in damages by the C in an action bought by B against U and F regarding the ownership of chattels. C and U appealed. "Held": The appeal was allowed in the forfeiture action, on the grounds that as an equitable chargee of a lease forfeited for non-payment C could seek relief indirectly as there was an implied obligation on the chargor to take reasonable steps to preserve the chargee's security, but dismissed in the chattels action.
ARREARS
CHATTELS
BLAND V INGRAMS ESTATES LTD
BLAND V INGRAM'S ESTATES LTD AND OTHERS (NO2)
OWNERSHIP
RELIEF
RELIEF FROM FORFEITURE
EQUITABLE CHARGES
RENT ARREARS
CA 21 December 2000. The claimant (C) surrendered the lease of a restaurant to the first defendant landlord (I), who then granted a new lease to Mr & Mrs B (B) who in turn agreed to pay C for the business in instalments. When B failed to pay certain instalments C obtained summary judgement against them and, later, two charging orders which were registered pursuant to the Land Charges Act 1972. After the lease was forfeited for arrears of rent a new lease was granted to the second (U) and third (F) defendants. C then brought an application, which was dismissed, for relief from forfeiture whilst an injunction was granted against U on cross-undertakings in damages by the C in an action bought by B against U and F regarding the ownership of chattels. C and U appealed. "Held": The appeal was allowed in the forfeiture action, on the grounds that as an equitable chargee of a lease forfeited for non-payment C could seek relief indirectly as there was an implied obligation on the chargor to take reasonable steps to preserve the chargee's security, but dismissed in the chattels action.
ARREARS
CHATTELS
BLAND V INGRAMS ESTATES LTD
BLAND V INGRAM'S ESTATES LTD AND OTHERS (NO2)
OWNERSHIP
RELIEF
RELIEF FROM FORFEITURE
EQUITABLE CHARGES
RENT ARREARS