Romanos & Anor v Pentagold Investments & Anor, Tanwar Enterprises v Cauchi & Ors

The High Court of Australia considered appeals in two separate matters, *Romanos & Anor v Pentagold Investments & Anor* and *Tanwar Enterprises v Cauchi & Ors*. Both appeals concerned the equitable doctrine of relief against forfeiture, specifically in circumstances where a tenant sought to avoid forfeiture of a lease due to a breach of a time-sensitive covenant. The primary dispute in *Romanos* involved a failure to pay rent by a specific date, while *Tanwar* concerned a failure to complete a purchase by a contractual deadline.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the extent to which equity would intervene to grant relief against forfeiture in cases of a breach of a time-sensitive obligation, particularly where the breach was not occasioned by fraud, accident, or mistake. The court was required to determine whether the equitable jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture extended to situations where the party seeking relief had simply failed to comply with a contractual deadline, and if so, under what conditions.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, affirmed that the equitable jurisdiction to grant relief against forfeiture is not confined to cases of fraud, accident, or mistake. However, it clarified that such relief is not a matter of right but is discretionary. The court held that for relief to be granted, there must be unconscionable conduct on the part of the party seeking to enforce the forfeiture. In *Romanos*, the court found that the tenant's failure to pay rent on time, without any mitigating circumstances such as fraud, accident, or mistake, did not amount to unconscionable conduct by the landlord. Conversely, in *Tanwar*, the court found that the vendor's conduct in insisting on strict adherence to the contractual deadline, despite the purchaser's substantial performance and the vendor's own actions contributing to the delay, was unconscionable.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal in *Romanos*, upholding the forfeiture of the lease. In *Tanwar*, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders for forfeiture and granting the purchasers an opportunity to complete the purchase.