Azkanaad v Galanos (No 2)

The dispute in Azkanaad v Galanos (No 2) involved the claimant, Azkanaad, seeking to enforce a lease agreement against the defendant, Galanos. The primary issue was whether a concluded agreement for lease was contained within the correspondence between the parties, and if so, whether this fell into the first category of proprietary estoppel as described in Masters v Cameron. Additionally, the court examined whether conventional estoppel applied to Galanos's failure to demand rent increases, whether Azkanaad's conduct precluded specific performance, and if there was no agreement for lease in equity. Another point of contention was whether a tenancy at will was terminated by notice to quit under the Conveyancing Act 1919, s 127(1), and whether relief from forfeiture was available.

The court determined that the correspondence between the parties did indeed contain a concluded agreement for lease, which fell within the first category of proprietary estoppel. However, the court found that conventional estoppel did not apply to Galanos's failure to demand rent increases. The court also ruled that Azkanaad's conduct did not preclude specific performance of the lease. In terms of the tenancy at will, the court found that it was terminated by the notice to quit under the Conveyancing Act 1919, s 127(1). However, the court also held that relief from forfeiture was available in equity.

In light of the above findings, the court dismissed Azkanaad's claim for specific performance of the lease. The court ordered that the tenancy at will was terminated, and that Galanos was entitled to possession of the property. The court also granted relief from forfeiture, allowing Azkanaad to remain in occupation of the property under certain conditions. The precise terms of the relief from forfeiture were to be determined by further proceedings.