Statutory protections from forfeiture of a leasehold estate following Apriaden Pty Ltd v Seacrest Pty Ltd

In Apriaden Pty Ltd v Seacrest Pty Ltd the Victorian Court of Appeal decided that termination of a lease under common law contractual principles following repudiation is an alternative to reliance upon an express forfeiture provision in the lease and that it is outside the sphere of statutory protections given against the enforcing of a forfeiture. The balance of authority supports the first aspect of the decision. This article focuses on the second aspect of it, which is a significant development in the law of leases. The article considers the implications of this decision for essential terms of clauses in leases, argues that common law termination for breach of essential terms should be subject to compliance with these statutory requirements and, as an alternative, suggests a way forward through appropriate law reform, considering whether the recent Victorian reform goes far enough.

Forfeiture relief

Looks at the common law forfeiture rule, preventing a person who has unlawfully killed another from profiting from the death, and the granting of relief under the Forfeiture Act 1982. Reviews case law on the forfeiture rule, its modification under s.2 in the interests of justice and the provision under s.3 that the rule does not preclude an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Reviews the Chancery Division ruling in Land v Land (Deceased), highlighting the ability for a claimant to choose whether to seek relief from forfeiture under s.2 of the 1982 Act or pursue a claim for reasonable financial provision from a deceased's estate under s.2 of the 1975 Act.