Osibanjo and Anor v Seahives Investments Ltd [electronic resource]
Osibanjo and Anor v Seahives Investments Ltd [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] EWCA Civ 1282, 21 November 2008. Business tentants (O) appealed against a possession order granted to the respondent landlord (S) issued following non-payment of rent and a bankruptcy petition. S then discovered other breaches of covenant. O then sent a cheque to S to discharge the bankruptcy sum and part payment of rent arrears. S's solicitors banked the cheque notifying O that it should not be regarded a waiver of S's right to forfeit the lease. O argued that S had waived the right to forfeit the lease because it has accepted the cheque. Held:appeal dismissed. Processing a cheque was insufficient to establish that it was accepted as rent. The bankruptcy proceedings did not amount to a waiver of forfeiture. They were begun before S knew of the breaches of covenant. Acceptance of the bankruptcy sum did not amount to a waiver by acceptance of rent since the arrears on which the bankruptcy petition was based related to a rent period before S knew of the breaches of covenant. In any case, acceptance of rent would not prevent a landlord from forfeiting because the breaches were continuing.
OSIBANJO AND ANOR V SEAHIVE INVESTMENTS LTD
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWCA Civ 1282, 21 November 2008. Business tentants (O) appealed against a possession order granted to the respondent landlord (S) issued following non-payment of rent and a bankruptcy petition. S then discovered other breaches of covenant. O then sent a cheque to S to discharge the bankruptcy sum and part payment of rent arrears. S's solicitors banked the cheque notifying O that it should not be regarded a waiver of S's right to forfeit the lease. O argued that S had waived the right to forfeit the lease because it has accepted the cheque. Held:appeal dismissed. Processing a cheque was insufficient to establish that it was accepted as rent. The bankruptcy proceedings did not amount to a waiver of forfeiture. They were begun before S knew of the breaches of covenant. Acceptance of the bankruptcy sum did not amount to a waiver by acceptance of rent since the arrears on which the bankruptcy petition was based related to a rent period before S knew of the breaches of covenant. In any case, acceptance of rent would not prevent a landlord from forfeiting because the breaches were continuing.
OSIBANJO AND ANOR V SEAHIVE INVESTMENTS LTD
England and Wales--1543-