{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012922465208747515, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004970178926441352, 'mean_word_length': 4.385026737967914, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Forfeiture of Equitable Leases

This article will consider the position of a tenant under an agreement for a lease of land who is in breach of the terms of the agreement. It is generally considered today, on the authority of Coatsworth v. Johnsonthat a breach will cause the tenant to lose all his equitable rights. But this article will argue that the Court of Appeal in that case misapplied the earlier Chancery cases, which suggested that a breach by a tenant under an agreement for a lease of the terms of his agreement merely rendered his rights liable to forfeiture. It will be suggested that the reason why this confusion arose was because the court in Coatsworth v. Johnson was very anxious to limit the wide interpretation given to the Judicature Act 18732 in Walsh v. Lonsdale.s It is proposed to consider first the decision in Walsh v. Lonsdale and the doctrine that has been developed from it, and then to consider the restriction of it in the line of cases starting with Coatsworth v. Johnson.