Court of Appeal Blocks Forfeiture after Lease Dispute Settlement

In a recent decision that clarifies the limits of enforcement following a lease dispute settlement, the Court of Appeal has ruled in White v 29 Buckland Crescent Management Co Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 814 that a landlord cannot pursue forfeiture if that remedy was not explicitly preserved in a settlement agreement. 

Background

The case arose from a dispute between Mr White, a leasehold owner of a flat in a converted building, 29 Buckland Crescent, and the freeholder (29 Buckland Crescent Management Co Ltd) of the building. 

The lease required Mr White to maintain the internal parts of his flat in good and substantial repair. However, repeated water leaks from his flat into other parts of the building led the freeholder to allege a breach of this obligation.

Legal proceedings were initiated to determine whether Mr White had breached the lease, potentially paving the way for forfeiture. However, prior to the matter reaching trial, the parties reached a settlement. Mr White admitted the breach of covenant, agreed to make certain payments and committed to complete specific remedial works by a specified date. 

Importantly, this settlement included a clause stating that all existing and potential claims, including those that were “connected” to the dispute, were resolved. However, the settlement allowed either party to enforce the terms of the agreement. 

Mr White failed to complete the agreed works on time and the freeholder served a notice under section 146 of the Law and Property Act 1925 and commenced forfeiture proceedings. Mr White challenged the approach of the freeholder arguing that the right to forfeit had been extinguished by the settlement as it was “connected” to the original dispute. 

The Judgment

The County Court initially agreed with Mr White. However, the High Court reversed the County Court’s decision, holding that forfeiture was a means of enforcing the settlement. There was then an appeal to the Court of Appeal in which they disagreed with the High Court’s decision. 

The Court of Appeal held that forfeiture is a remedy for a breach of a lease, not for breach of a settlement agreement. Since the settlement was intended to resolve all claims related to the original dispute, and did not expressly preserve the right to forfeit, the freeholder could not rely on the original breach to trigger forfeiture. The only rights retained under the settlement were those necessary to enforce the agreement itself – such as seeking damages or specific performance – not to revive remedies tied to the original breach.

Key Takeaways

• Forfeiture is lease-based, not agreement-based - The Court made it clear that forfeiture is a remedy for breach of lease terms, not for breach of a settlement agreement.
• Unambiguous Settlement Terms – Settlement terms should be drafted clearly and unambiguously and if parties wish to preserve specific rights, they must say so explicitly in their agreement.

If you would like any further information, please contact Jatinder Bhamber. 

The judgment can be found below: 

White v 29 Buckland Crescent Management Company Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 814 (30 June 2025)