ESU-Essex Court Chambers National Mooting Competition

Quarter Finals Problem (Moot of 2001/2002)

Taff v Llewellin
House of Lords

In 1990 Mr Taff is tenant of a fifteen year lease of shop premises in a sea-front town in South Wales. Mr Llewellin is the landlord. In the lease the tenant covenanted with the landlord that he would not assign or sub-let the premises without the landlord's prior written consent. The lease contained a forfeiture clause entitling the landlord to forfeit the lease in the event of breach of any of the tenant's covenants. The parties contracted out of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, so that act does not apply to their lease.

Taff fell into financial difficulty and wished to sub-let the premises to a friend, Miss S. Van-Zee, for three years. Taff requested the landlord's consent, but, being confident of receiving consent in due course, decided to proceed with the sub-letting without consent.

Upon discovering the sub-letting, Llewellin initiated forfeiture proceedings on the basis that Taff had committed an irremediable breach of the covenant against sub-letting. Llewellin explained to Taff that he would not have consented to the sub-letting because Miss Van-Zee is conducting the business of a Belgian Chocolate shop in the demised premises. Llewellin owns a "Sweet Emporium" in the next town along the coast.

The tenant applied to court for relief from forfeiture. In those proceedings Ouster J held that:

  1. The landlord's refusal of consent to sub-let had been unreasonable, and therefore the landlord had not been entitled to forfeit the lease.

  2. In the alternative, if the forfeiture had been valid, the tenant should nevertheless have been given the opportunity to remedy his breach.
Llewellin applealed on the grounds that:
  1. The refusal of consent to sub-let had been reasonable because he was entitled to prevent the use of his own premises for purposes competing with his own commercial interests.

  2. The tenant's breach of the covenant had been irremediable because the covenant was negative in substance.
The Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, and he now appeal, and he now appeals on the same grounds to the House of Lords.

« back