Speak to our friendly staff directly  +44 (0)20 7242 2523

A leading set specialising in commercial, construction, insurance and property law

Insights
This document is from our archive and no action should be taken in reliance on it without specific legal advice.

Property Law - Reichmann & another v. Beveridge & another [2006]

Area(s) of Law :
Property Law

Rent arrears

 B & another (A) were tenants of R & another (R)- five year lease from January 2000- A ceased to trade and quit premises in march 2003- R waited, and then sued for rent arrears- A defended on basis that R had failed to mitigate loss by finding new tenants- DJ held R under no such duty to mitigate- upheld on appeal to CJ- A appealed further:-

Held: Appeal dismissed. A landlord was under no obligation to mitigate its loss when seeking to recover rent arrears. It was for the party in breach to establish that the innocent party’s conduct was wholly unreasonable. Only in extraordinary circumstances would a tenant be able to show that a landlord’s conduct could be so characterised. There was no English authority for the proposition that a landlord could recover damages from a tenant for future loss of rent after termination. Damages were either not an adequate remedy for the landlord, or it would be acting reasonably in taking the view that it should not terminate the lease as it might be unable to recover such damages.