Crisp v Eastaugh

Crisp v Eastaugh

The judge erred in refusing relief from forfeiture as there was sufficient evidence that the appellant could pay the sums due; the appellant’s challenge to the landlord’s title was not an unequivocal repudiation but a bona fide dispute, so forfeiture on that ground was not justified.

Parties
Appellant: John Eastaugh; Respondent: Michael Crisp
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Relief From Forfeiture, Denial of Title, Forfeiture of Lease, Breach of Covenant, Costs
Land Law Landlord and Tenant Relief From Forfeiture Denial of Title Forfeiture of Lease Breach of Covenant Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Eastaugh

Appellant

Michael Crisp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was right to refuse relief from forfeiture to the appellant in respect of the 1972 lease
  2. 2 Whether the judge was right to dismiss the contention that the appellant had denied the landlord’s title, justifying forfeiture

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in refusing relief from forfeiture as there was sufficient evidence that the appellant could pay the sums due; the appellant’s challenge to the landlord’s title was not an unequivocal repudiation but a bona fide dispute, so forfeiture on that ground was not justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for relief from forfeiture of the 1972 lease on conditions as to payment of arrears of rent, damages, and costs.
  • Arrears of rent to be paid within 14 days.