Judgment handed down in Mentmore Golf Investments Limited v Gaymer

On 13 October 2025, judgment was handed down by Sir Anthony Mann in the appeal in Mentmore Golf Investments Limited v Gaymer [2025] EWHC 2604 (Ch). The Appellant had brought a claim for relief from forfeiture as chargee of a lease of a golf course, of which Mr Gaymer is the freeholder and lessor.  At the time at which the Appellant’s claim for relief from forfeiture was brought, an order for possession had been made against the tenant, Mentmore Greenland Limited, in separate possession proceedings.  Mr Gaymer then applied to strike out the Appellant’s claim / obtain summary judgment, by which time the order for possession had been executed.  The first instance judge granted the application and ordered that the Appellant’s claim for relief from forfeiture be struck out, alternatively granting summary judgment to the Respondent landlord, Mr Gaymer.

Broadly speaking, the issues on appeal were as follows:

1.      Where a mortgagee applies to the court for relief from forfeiture of a lease, after the possession order is made against the tenant, but before it is executed, does the subsequent execution prevent the claim for relief on the footing the landlord is no longer ‘proceeding’ for the purposes of s.146 of the Law of Property Act 1925?

2.      If so, does the mortgagee have to get the possession order and the possession set aside before it can proceed further (i.e. to claim relief)?

3.      If not, and the claim for relief is sustainable as a matter of law, did the facts alleged in the instant case (regarding an alleged close relationship or connection between the tenant and the Appellant) make the Appellant’s application an abuse of process such that it should be struck out?

On appeal, Sir Anthony Mann reversed the decision to grant summary judgment, but upheld the first instance judge’s strike-out on grounds the Appellant’s claim was an abuse of process, though for different reasons to those given at first instance.

In reaching its decision in the appeal, the Judge held that:

1.      The issue of proceedings is the point of time at which the right to apply for relief from forfeiture “falls to be tested”.  Accordingly, since the Appellant’s claim had been made before the order for possession had been executed, it was made in time.

2.      Sections 146(2) and (4) do not require a mortgagee to apply for relief from forfeiture in the landlord’s possession proceedings.  The fact that a claim for relief has been started in separate proceedings does not, in itself, mean those proceedings have not been properly constituted.

As regards abuse of process, the Appellant’s claim was found to be “part of a scheme to string out a piece of litigation… rather than being a genuine claim advanced by an independent mortgagee seeking to protect its own interests”.  So, although the first instance judge’s stated reasons for striking out the Appellant’s claim did not justify a strike out, it was nevertheless liable to be struck out.

John McGhee KC and Harriet Holmes, instructed by Mark Reading and Michael Clarke of Mishcon de Reya LLP, acted for the Appellant.

Joanne Wicks KC and Alex Hill-Smith of New Square Chambers, instructed by Philip Shaw of Knights LLP, acted for the Respondent.

Read the full judgment