In Pineport Ltd v Grangeglen Ltd  EWHC 1318 (Ch), the court was prepared to grant relief from forfeiture despite a 14 month delay by the tenant in seeking relief.
The court had to consider whether it could be said that the application was made with “reasonable promptitude” taking a six-month period as a guide.
The company claimed that the delay arose from a combination of factors including a restraint order, lack of money and the absence of specialist advice, and the fact that the director was suffering from depression. That evidence, combined with the effects of the company director’s depression were weighty factors to be put in the balance. The court confirmed that the discretion to grant relief was broad, and reasonable promptitude was an elastic concept capable of taking into account human factors. Although 14 months was more than double the guide period, it was held that it would be wrong to bar the company from obtaining relief.