RE15
Landlord’s Remedies and Lease Termination
Landlord’s remedies for breach of lease
A landlord has a number of REMEDIES available when a TENANT BREACHES a covenant contained in the lease.
The available remedies vary depending on whether the breach is of a covenant to pay rent, or a breach of
another covenant in the lease e.g. a repairing covenant.
Exam Structure:
1. Clause they have breached in the lease – rent (clause 4.1 – work out when last paid, when not paid when
due/how long) and repair (clause 4.8 - wear and tear is not insured risk, therefore tenant has the obligation)
2. Identify the option.
3. Briefly explain what it is.
4. Discuss a pro and a con for each.
5. Conclude at the end as to which one is more appropriate. There usually is not a wrong answer, just
whatever answer you give must be justified – can try for as many as possible
Non-payment of rent
Option Procedure Pros and Cons
Debt Action → The landlord can bring a claim against the Pros:
tenant to recover a debt.
Get to keep the tenant (though this may not be
Apply to the court. desirable if he isn’t paying rent on time) – No vacant
Action must be initiated within 6 years possession of property
(limitation period) Relatively secure as tenant is unlikely to have a strong
Request will be for a specific sum and counter-argument.
interest if provided for in the lease (Clause Can be relatively quick through the County Court.
4.4) (always check this)
Cons:
Costly (especially if tenant has no money).
Can become protracted and hence time-consuming.
Ineffective if the company is insolvent. No point suing
current T who is likely to be in financial difficulties
(financial difficulty is probably why they defaulted on
rent payments in the first place)
If the tenant has no money then a successful debt
action will be a waste of time and the landlord will
have thrown “good money after bad”.
Limitation Act 1980 means action can be brought with
regards only debts which were due in the last six
years.
May have to enforce the judgment which can be
time-consuming.
Forfeiture/ → Forfeiture clause must be specified in the Pros:
Re-entry lease. (Clause 6.1.2. (a))
→ Will need to serve a formal demand for Can get rid of a difficult tenant – vacant possession
i.e. early payment on the tenant unless the Chance to get new T and potentially higher rent
termination of forfeiture clause dispenses with this. depending on market conditions
the lease. → If the tenant does not pay, the landlord Remedy is powerful and a formal demand might
can then forfeit the lease by either (1) pressure the tenant into action.
1
Landlord’s Remedies and Lease Termination
Landlord’s remedies for breach of lease
A landlord has a number of REMEDIES available when a TENANT BREACHES a covenant contained in the lease.
The available remedies vary depending on whether the breach is of a covenant to pay rent, or a breach of
another covenant in the lease e.g. a repairing covenant.
Exam Structure:
1. Clause they have breached in the lease – rent (clause 4.1 – work out when last paid, when not paid when
due/how long) and repair (clause 4.8 - wear and tear is not insured risk, therefore tenant has the obligation)
2. Identify the option.
3. Briefly explain what it is.
4. Discuss a pro and a con for each.
5. Conclude at the end as to which one is more appropriate. There usually is not a wrong answer, just
whatever answer you give must be justified – can try for as many as possible
Non-payment of rent
Option Procedure Pros and Cons
Debt Action → The landlord can bring a claim against the Pros:
tenant to recover a debt.
Get to keep the tenant (though this may not be
Apply to the court. desirable if he isn’t paying rent on time) – No vacant
Action must be initiated within 6 years possession of property
(limitation period) Relatively secure as tenant is unlikely to have a strong
Request will be for a specific sum and counter-argument.
interest if provided for in the lease (Clause Can be relatively quick through the County Court.
4.4) (always check this)
Cons:
Costly (especially if tenant has no money).
Can become protracted and hence time-consuming.
Ineffective if the company is insolvent. No point suing
current T who is likely to be in financial difficulties
(financial difficulty is probably why they defaulted on
rent payments in the first place)
If the tenant has no money then a successful debt
action will be a waste of time and the landlord will
have thrown “good money after bad”.
Limitation Act 1980 means action can be brought with
regards only debts which were due in the last six
years.
May have to enforce the judgment which can be
time-consuming.
Forfeiture/ → Forfeiture clause must be specified in the Pros:
Re-entry lease. (Clause 6.1.2. (a))
→ Will need to serve a formal demand for Can get rid of a difficult tenant – vacant possession
i.e. early payment on the tenant unless the Chance to get new T and potentially higher rent
termination of forfeiture clause dispenses with this. depending on market conditions
the lease. → If the tenant does not pay, the landlord Remedy is powerful and a formal demand might
can then forfeit the lease by either (1) pressure the tenant into action.
1
