29 Buckland Crescent Management Company Limited vs Rojer Taylor White

This case involved a dispute between 29 Buckland Crescent Management Company Limited and Rojer Taylor White over the interpretation of a settlement agreement and the right to bring forfeiture proceedings.

TLDR:

• The landlord sought to forfeit the lease of Mr. White's flat due to alleged breaches.
• The dispute centered on whether a prior settlement agreement precluded such proceedings.
• The High Court ruled in favor of the landlord, allowing forfeiture proceedings to proceed.

The appellant, 29 Buckland Crescent Management Company Limited, owned the freehold of a building divided into four flats, one of which was leased to the respondent, Rojer Taylor White. The landlord sought to forfeit the lease due to alleged breaches of the repairing covenant in the lease. The central issue was whether a settlement agreement dated 26 April 2022 precluded the landlord from bringing forfeiture proceedings.

Mr. White's flat had a history of leaks affecting the flat below, owned by Ms. Yalgin. Investigations identified issues with the shower's grouting and sealant. Despite attempts to fix the leaks, problems persisted, leading to disputes between the landlord and Mr. White.

The landlord initiated proceedings in the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) under s168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) to determine breaches of the lease. Concurrently, Mr. White made an insurance claim for repairs. The parties eventually entered into a settlement agreement that included an admission of breach by Mr. White and an obligation to carry out specified works.

When the works were not completed by the agreed date, the landlord served a s146 notice and initiated forfeiture proceedings. The county court ruled that the settlement agreement precluded forfeiture proceedings, but the landlord appealed.

The High Court, presided by Mr. Justice Richards, examined the settlement agreement's clauses, particularly clauses 6 and 7, which dealt with the release of claims and the agreement not to sue. The court found that the agreement did not preclude the landlord from bringing forfeiture proceedings.

The court noted that the settlement agreement's purpose was to resolve specific disputes but did not eliminate the landlord's right to enforce lease terms through forfeiture. The court emphasized the importance of the factual matrix, including the ongoing issues with leaks and the parties' contentious relationship.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the landlord's appeal, permitting the forfeiture proceedings to continue. The decision clarified the scope of settlement agreements and their impact on subsequent legal actions.

Legal representatives: Daniel Bromilow (instructed by Teacher Stern LLP) for the Appellant, Mark O'Grady (instructed by Keystone Law) for the Respondent.

Judicial Panel: Mr. Justice Richards

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1480 (Ch)