The parties were respective owners of interests in flying freehold flats. An order had been made allowing access to make repairs to the roof, and the claimant now appealed an order requiring it to pay a greater part of the costs because of the other owner’s impecuniosity.
Held: The roof served to protect both parties, and it was artificial to distinguish as to benefit, and in principle the burden should be shared equally. The respondent’s duty was to make a contribution to the cost of repairs. Those responsibilities could not vary according to the relative financial positions of the owners from time to time. Appeal allowed.
References: Times 28-Dec-2002, Gazette 13-Mar-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1831, [2003] 2 EG 103, [2003] 1 All ER 465, [2003] 28 EG 114, [2003] 1 WLR 1472, [2003] 2 EGLR 66, [2003] HLR 40
Links: Bailii
Judges: Chadwick LJ, Munby J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Last Update: 25 October 2020; Ref: scu.420970