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 tenant and the poor condition of the premises . . when the term started. It is common ground that it would be sensible to put in a damp-proof course. . . In my judgment, to require the tenant to insert a damp-proof course . . would be to require him to give back to the landlord a different thing from that [originally] demised to him . . The circumstances are very different from those involved in the consideration of the landlord’s covenant in Elmcroft Developments.’ Hale LJ said that the question of whether ‘admittedly sensible works fall within [a] particular repairing covenant’ was ‘in every case a matter of fact and degree’, depending also on the wording of the covenant in question.
Judges:
Pill LJ, Hale LJ
Citations:
[2000] EWCA Civ 501, (2000) 80 PandCR 220
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 – Wainwright v Leeds City Council CA 1984
The court considered the landlord’s covenant for repair of residential property.
Held: The installation of a damp-course in property which did not previously have one was not a repair: ‘applying the facts of that case to the facts of this . .
Distinguished – Elmcroft Developments Ltd v Tankersley-Sawyer CA 1984
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 . .
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 – Stent v Monmouth District Council 1987
The court considered whether under a repairing covenant a wooden door should be replaced with a self-sealing aluminium door.
Held: The replacement came within a repairing covenant as a sensible way to deal with a persisting problem. . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235322