
Publication
WHS Law Briefing
Welcome to our WHS Law Briefing. This briefing identifies key issues and emerging trends in WHS Law, and details significant legislative and case law developments from February to date in July 2025.
Global | Publication | October 2018
Since the abolition of distress in 2014, landlords who want to recover rent arrears by taking control of the tenant’s goods and selling them must do so through a statutory procedure known as Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (CRAR). CRAR is more limited than distress and is only available to recover arrears of basic rent from commercial premises.
Leases of commercial premises also invariably contain an express right for the landlord to terminate the lease by forfeiture if the tenant is in breach of any of its terms, such as by not paying rent.
It is all too easy accidentally to waive the right of forfeit. If the landlord (or indeed its agents) does anything that effectively acknowledges an ongoing landlord and tenant relationship once it is aware of a breach of the lease, it will have waived its right of forfeit for that particular breach.
Thirunavukkrasu v Brar [2018] EWCH 2461 (Ch) considered for the first time whether the exercise of CRAR amounted to a waiver of the right to forfeit.
The landlord sought to recover accrued arrears of rent by means of the CRAR procedure and the landlord’s agents exercised CRAR over the tenant’s goods. The landlord also subsequently purported to forfeit the lease by re-entry. The tenants argued that the purported forfeiture of their lease was unlawful and claimed damages for trespass.
The judge held that the exercise of CRAR by the landlord contained an “unequivocal representation that the lease was continuing”, so that the right to forfeit the lease had been waived and the forfeiture was indeed unlawful.
Accidental waiver is a particular problem in the context of “once and for all” (as opposed to continuing) breaches, because if the right to forfeit in respect of such breaches is waived, it will be waived permanently. Non-payment of rent is a “once and for all” breach. However, landlords may be heartened to know that the right to forfeit may arise again if the tenant fails to pay another instalment of rent in the future.
Publication
Welcome to our WHS Law Briefing. This briefing identifies key issues and emerging trends in WHS Law, and details significant legislative and case law developments from February to date in July 2025.
Publication
In Roberts Co (NSW) Pty Ltd v Sharvain Facades Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2025] NSWCA 161, the NSW Court of Appeal has found that, for the purposes of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SoP Act), a deeming clause providing that a notice given after 5pm is to be treated as having been given and received at 9am on the next business day, does not extend the statutory time period for service of a payment schedule.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2025