Ayela & Anor v London Borough of Newham [2010] EWHC 309 (QB) (19 February 2010)

Ayela & Anor v London Borough of Newham [2010] EWHC 309 (QB) (19 February 2010)

The acts relied on by the appellants did not constitute a waiver of the right to forfeit for arrears of rent; even if there had been a waiver, subsequent non-payment of rent revived the right to forfeit. The appellants could not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success at trial as they were unable to pay arrears within a reasonable time. Judge Bailey's exercise of discretion in finding a good reason for non-attendance was within the permissible range. No basis for discretionary relief or admission of fresh evidence was established.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 309 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mrs Sandra Ayela; Appellant/claimant: Mrs Debo Kaur Kalley; Respondent/defendant: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Newham
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Lease, Relief From Forfeiture, Waiver of Forfeiture, Promissory Estoppel, Non Attendance at Trial, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Forfeiture of Lease Relief From Forfeiture Waiver of Forfeiture Promissory Estoppel Non Attendance at Trial Fresh Evidence on Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Sandra Ayela

Appellant/claimant

Mrs Debo Kaur Kalley

Appellant/claimant

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Newham

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent waived its right to forfeiture of the leases
  2. 2 Whether discretionary relief against forfeiture should be granted due to alleged defects in the rent collection system
  3. 3 Whether the appellants had a good reason for non-attendance at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The acts relied on by the appellants did not constitute a waiver of the right to forfeit for arrears of rent; even if there had been a waiver, subsequent non-payment of rent revived the right to forfeit. The appellants could not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success at trial as they were unable to pay arrears within a reasonable time. Judge Bailey's exercise of discretion in finding a good reason for non-attendance was within the permissible range. No basis for discretionary relief or admission of fresh evidence was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed