ChD 17 February 1989. Dispute over repairing covenant . The tenant, (T), alleged breach es of the repairing covenant going back several years. Some of these were solved by agreement before proceedings began for forfeiture in 1987. This initial case was not pursued because T stated that the landlords, Sambrin Investments (S) had waived the right to forfeit by demanding rent. New proceedings began in 1988, after a new notice under Law of the Property Act 1925 s146 . S asserted that all the works for which they were liable had been completed or were being undertaken. In a counterclaim that asserted that if the lease were forfeited they would undertake to execute all proper work as soon as possible and they sought relief from forfeiture. When the application for summary judgement under ordinance 14 came before the judge it was not clear how much repair work had been done. The judge referred to the decision Liverpool Properties Ltd v Oldbridge Investment Ltd by which he was bound. The rat