Bronca would be liable for only costs relating to the breach of the covenant not to use the premises for anything other than residential purposes because this covenant was in the original agreement

Bronca would not be liable at all under her Authorised Guarantee Agreement because the agreement was subsequently amended

Bronca will be required to pay £50,000 to remedy both of Manny's breaches

Given that the landlord became aware of the breaches more than six months ago, Bronca would not be liable for them at all, as they are fixed charges under Section 17 Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995

If Bronca is asked to remedy the breach and the landlord decides not to forfeit Manny's lease, Bronca is discharged from liability if Manny breaches any more obligations in future

The landlord cannot exercise her right to forfeit as Manny was not an original signatory to the lease, so the proviso for re-entry does not apply to him

The breach of the covenant not to make any structural alterations or additions to the premises is so serious that the landlord has the right to forfeit at any point, in line with the proviso for re-entry

The landlord would not be able to forfeit because she has waived her right to do so as it has been 11 months since she found out about Manny's conduct

The landlord would not be able to forfeit at all because one of the breaches in question was of a "once and for all" nature and she has implicitly waived her right to breach

The landlord cannot currently exercise her right to forfeit for the breach because she has implicitly waived the right to do so. However, one of Manny's breaches is a continuing breach, so the landlord could simply seek to forfeit if she stops accepting the payment of rent or service charges from Manny going forwards

Carter would be granted relief from forfeiture as the court would weigh up the significant loss he would face in losing a lease with 100 years of the term remaining against his breaches which are, relatively speaking, causing significantly less loss to Tobias

Tobias could proceed with forfeiture even without giving Carter an opportunity to remedy the breach; his s.146 notice could plausibly assert that Carter’s use of the premises were irremediable because of the stigma caused by Carter’s actions

The courts would likely say that Tobias has implicitly waived his right to forfeit for the breaches in question as they have been happening for the last 8 years

Given that the lease contained no covenant to not use the premises for illegal or immoral purposes, Carter’s breach would be remediable, because the illegal and immoral purpose he is using the premises for is inconsequential to his breach

He could unilaterally revoke his consent to the assignment; this would revert responsibility for the breaches back to Alvita, as the previous leaseholder

He would be able to pursue Violet for the breach, on the basis of her continuing contractual liability, give that she was the original contracting party to the agreement

Within any s.146 notice sent to Carter, Tobias could request that Carter remedies the breaches AND compensates Tobias for his loss if he is to resist any attempt to forfeit the lease

He would NOT be able to seek compensation from Carter as this is only a contractual remedy and Carter is not an original contracting party

Carter’s use of the premises as an (illegal) betting shop changes the use of the property from residential to commercial. As such, Carter can peaceably re-enter the premises without fear of prosecution

To avoid any accidental waiver, Tobias should immediately refuse to accept any payment from Carter that may be due as part of his performance of the lease.

Tobias should immediately issue a s.146 notice to Carter, detailing the breaches complained about

Tobias should immediately exercise his right to re-enter given the severity of the breaches in question

They must serve a notice on the tenant, establishing what act(s) of the tenant are in breach of the lease, giving them 2 months’ notice before their eviction. The notice also needs to be submitted to the First-tier Tribunal, to put them on notice that the landlord is seeking to exercise their right to forfeit, under section 168 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

Given the severity of the consequences of forfeiture for the tenant, section 146 Law of Property Act 1925 requires that an initial notice served in writing must be followed with another notice served between 14 and 28 days later if it is to be enforceable

A landlord need not serve notice on a tenant whose breach is objectively incapable of being remedied because it involves criminality or illegality that leaves an enduring stigma

They must serve a notice on the tenant, identifying the specific covenant that has been breached, offering the leaseholder an opportunity to remedy the breach, and demand payment of additional compensation for the breach

In tenancies created after 31 December 1995, only obligations which are fundamental and of proprietary character, and have reference to the subject matter of the lease, will be binding on assignees of the lease

In tenancies created after 31 December 1995, there is a statutory presumption that all landlord and tenant covenants will burden assignees unless they are otherwise expressly stated to be personal obligations

The doctrine of privity of estate encapsulates the idea that there will always be a direct relationship between the landlord and any person who is physically in occupation of the land that is subject to the lease at any one time, irrespective of whether the parties had a direct contractual relationship

In tenancies created before 1 January 1996, the common law doctrine of privity of estate establishes that an assignee of the lease will be bound BOTH by covenants which are personal in nature AND those which touch and concern the land

The doctrine of privity of estate supersedes the doctrine of privity of contract, and ensures that benefits and burdens of obligations within a lease will not impact original contracting parties

It is only available to former leaseholders in the context of leases created after the enactment of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995

It is only available to former leaseholders in the context of leases created before the enactment of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, as a way of mitigating the severity of their enduring contractual liability

An overriding lease results in the existing tenancy of the defaulting tenant becoming a sub-tenancy, and the previous leaseholder becomes both the immediate landlord of the defaulting tenant, and the immediate tenant of the original landlord

The ability to request an overriding interest is an option available to relevant leaseholders, but any request made to the landlord can be refused by that landlord for any reason deemed objectively reasonable

It is only available to the immediately preceding leaseholder