The premises were a part of a late Victorian purpose-built mansion block consisting of 27 flats, including seven basement flats. They formed part of a larger terrace of buildings of a similar character and provided high-class accommodation in a sought-after fashionable area of London. The provision of a damp-proof course was a repair under a landlord’s covenant which required the landlord to ‘maintain and keep the exterior of the building and the roof, the main walls, timbers and drains thereof in good and tenantable repair and condition’.
Held: The remedial work necessary to eradicate the rising damp was the installation of a horizontal damp-proof course by silicone injection and formation of vertical barriers by silicone injection. This was within the landlord’s repairing covenant. It was necessary in order to repair the walls and, although it involved improvement over the previous ineffective slate damp-proof course, having regard to the nature and locality of the property, this did not involve giving the tenant a different thing from that which was demised. The court distinguished Lamdin because it related to business premises which were over 100 years old, whereas this case related to a recent letting ‘of what was built as a separate self-contained flat in a high-class fashionable area’.
Lord Justice Ackner said: ‘there was constructed into the walls what was intended to be a damp-proof course, consisting of slates laid horizontally. These existed in the external and the party walls of the flat, but, owing either to a defect in design or construction or bad workmanship, this layer of slates intended to be a damp-proof course was ineffectual because it was positioned below ground. The result was obvious. It allowed moisture to be drawn up from the ground by capillary action, with the inevitable result that the flats were in a damp condition, rising damp resulting from what was described as the bridging of the damp-proof course, and parts of the interior of main walls of the flats had been adversely affected up to a hight of about 1 to 1.5m.’ and ‘To my mind it is unarguable that the state of that flat in particular, bearing in mind the age, character and locality of the flat was such as to be quite unfit for the occupation of a reasonably minded tenant of a class who would be likely to take it — very probably unfit for any tenant….’
Judges:
Ackner LJ, Watkins LJ
Citations:
[1984] 1 EGLR 47, (1984) 270 EG 140
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Pembery v Lamdin CA 1940
There was an obligation on the landlord to keep the premises in repair in the condition in which they were demised. The premises were ground floor and basement premises which were let for the purpose of providing accommodation for the public for . .
Cited – Brew Brothers Limited v Snax (Ross) Ltd CA 1970
The court considered the extent to which the nature of a building affected the duty to repair under a lease.
Sachs LJ said: ‘It seems to me that the correct approach is to look at the particular building, to look at the state which it is in at . .
Cited by:
Cited – Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v The Lands Tribunal CA 8-Nov-2005
The claimant appealed against a refusal of judicial review of a decision of the Lands Tribunal.
Held: A decision of the Lands Tribunal could only be judicially reviewed in exceptional cases where there was either a jurisdictional error or a . .
Distinguished – Eyre and others v McCracken CA 10-Mar-2000
The court considered the tenant’s covenant to repair in the context of a need for a damp course: ‘I have regard to the age, (over 150 years) and the design of the building. It has no damp-proof course . . I bear in mind the limited interest of the . .
Cited – Quick v Taff Ely Borough Council CA 1986
Because of fungus, mould growth and dampness, the tenant’s council house was virtually unfit for human habitation in the winter when the condensation was at its worst. Section 32(1) of the 1961 Act implied in the tenancy a covenant by the council to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.235457