This case ([2005] 1675 EWHC (Ch), [2005] 32 EG 66 (CS)) centred around the incompetence of the claimant's original solicitor in dealing with a breach in a lease. V entered into two leases for adjoining land with different landlords. In May 2000 one of the landlords re-entered it's land, as allowed under the lease, due to rent arrears of £40 000. The landlord agreed to grant relief from forfeiture, if the back rents were paid and measures taken to prevent further breaches. The defendant solicitor W informed V that the arrears needed to be paid as soon as possible, and they were given funds to do so. However terms were not agreed with the landlord, and despite telling V that it had done so, W made no application to the court for relief. Generally, when a landlord retakes possession without court proceedings, relief must be made within six months, although this does not apply to the HC. After the six months a new solicitor was appointed and following the advice of counsel, they too did not apply for relief since they would fail. W claimed that had the new solicitor proceeded with the claim for relief they would have been successful. "Held:" the judge did not agree with W that relief would have been granted, and that any negligence by the subsequent solicitor did not relieve W from his liability.