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

01 Jan 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.


This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.


Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Gatehouse Chambers. However, if you have any other queries about this content please contact: