13.07.2015 Views

Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

“reas<strong>on</strong>able time” may vary from case to case. In practice, where <strong>the</strong>l<strong>and</strong>lord seeks to effect <strong>the</strong> forfeiture by obtaining a court order forpossessi<strong>on</strong>, 34 <strong>the</strong> “reas<strong>on</strong>ableness” will be judged by <strong>the</strong> court when<strong>the</strong> acti<strong>on</strong> is heard. 35 The positi<strong>on</strong> is not so clear where <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lordeffects <strong>the</strong> forfeiture by a “peaceable” re-entry – presumably <strong>the</strong> <strong>on</strong>usis <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> tenant to bring proceedings to challenge this. This leads to<strong>the</strong> vital issue <strong>of</strong> how <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord effects <strong>the</strong> forfeiture.D Effecting <strong>the</strong> Forfeiture14.16 This is a subject involving several difficulties. First, asindicated in <strong>the</strong> previous paragraph, it is clear that it is always open toa l<strong>and</strong>lord to effect a “peaceable” re-entry, ie, without resorting to anycourt proceedings. 36 There are, however, a number <strong>of</strong> problems. Oneis, as indicated above, 37 that <strong>the</strong> re-entry may be precipitate, in thatinsufficient time has been allowed to <strong>the</strong> tenant to remedy <strong>the</strong> breach<strong>and</strong> so <strong>the</strong> tenant may be entitled to challenge <strong>the</strong> re-entry. 38 Ano<strong>the</strong>ris that great care must be exercised, especially if <strong>the</strong> tenant resists <strong>the</strong>re-entry, that criminal <strong>of</strong>fences are not committed, ranging from<strong>of</strong>fences against <strong>the</strong> pers<strong>on</strong> (tenant) to <strong>of</strong>fences against <strong>the</strong> property(eg, “forcible entry” 39 ). Ano<strong>the</strong>r is that, having achieved a successful“peaceable” re-entry, <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord remains subject to <strong>the</strong> risk that <strong>the</strong>tenant will subsequently apply for relief against <strong>the</strong> forfeiture <strong>and</strong>succeed in this. 40 Thus <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord must be cautious about re-letting34353637383940Ie by an ejectment acti<strong>on</strong>: see paragraphs 14.18 <strong>and</strong> 15.07 below.And if <strong>the</strong> court is not satisfied that <strong>the</strong> tenant has been given sufficienttime <strong>the</strong> acti<strong>on</strong> will fail. See Cr<strong>of</strong>ter Properties Ltd v Genport Ltd HighCourt 15 March 1996, Supreme Court 16 March 2001 <strong>and</strong> 9 July 2002.Sweeney Ltd v Powerscourt Shopping Centre Ltd [1984] IR 501.Paragraph 14.15.It is also settled that even though <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord has physically re-entered <strong>and</strong>dispossessed <strong>the</strong> tenant, <strong>the</strong> tenant may still apply for relief against <strong>the</strong>forfeiture: M<strong>on</strong>ument Creameries Ltd v Carysfort Estates Ltd [1967] IR462; Bills<strong>on</strong> v Residential Apartments Ltd [1992] 1 All ER 141; WG Clark(Properties) Ltd v Dupre Properties Ltd [1992] 1 All ER 596.See <strong>the</strong> Prohibiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> Forcible Entry <strong>and</strong> Occupati<strong>on</strong> Act 1971 which didnot repeal earlier legislati<strong>on</strong> like <strong>the</strong> Forcible Entry Acts (Irel<strong>and</strong>) 1634<strong>and</strong> 1786. See <strong>the</strong> remarks <strong>of</strong> Carroll J in Sweeney Ltd v PowerscourtShopping Centre Ltd [1984] IR 501, 504.See footnote 38 above <strong>and</strong> paragraph 14.23 below.172

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!