Forfeiture

Section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 controls how and when a landlord can actually use a forfeiture clause. A right of re-entry or forfeiture for breach of covenant 'shall not be enforceable, by action or otherwise, unless and until the lessor serves on the lessee a notice' that specifies the particular breach complained of, requires the lessee to remedy the breach if it is capable of remedy, and requires the lessee to pay compensation for the breach — and the tenant must then be given a reasonable time to comply before the landlord can proceed. This notice requirement does not apply to forfeiture for non-payment of rent, which is treated separately and can be pursued more directly (subject to its own relief provisions), but it is the standard gateway for forfeiture based on any other lease covenant, such as unauthorised alterations, subletting in breach of the lease, or persistent nuisance.

Critically, section 146(2) gives the tenant a statutory right to ask the court to intervene even after the landlord has served notice and started to act on it: 'the lessee may, in the lessor's action, if any, or in any action brought by himself, apply to the court for relief; and the court may grant or refuse relief, as the court... thinks fit,' and the court can attach conditions to any relief it grants, such as requiring the tenant to pay costs, remedy the breach, or comply with an injunction against repeating it. This relief from forfeiture jurisdiction is why forfeiture is rarely a clean, automatic process in practice: even where a landlord is technically entitled to forfeit, a tenant who remedies the breach and pays what is owed can very often persuade the court to reinstate the lease rather than let the landlord recover the property outright, particularly where the value of the lease is disproportionate to the breach.