Fluor Daniel Properties Ltd and Others v Shortlands Investments Ltd: ChD 25 Jan 2001

Tenants occupied various parts of a modern office building. The building was provided with an extensive air-conditioning system. The landlord sought to renew the air conditioning system at great expense. The tenants claimed that the work was unnecessary. The system had been properly maintained and was not in need of repair. The landlord did not provide a service by renewing or improving plans capable of delivering such a service. Although the clauses were widely drawn, they did not allow the landlord to incur expense on plant which was in working order and capable of rendering the appropriate service. The fact that the tenants were ultimately paying for the work did not displace the landlord’s duty to make the decisions, but his decisions must still be reasonable. The short length of the leases affected the reasonableness of the request from the landlord. The fact that the system had continued to work beyond the natural life-span of such systems was a starting point, but no more. The landlord was able to recover for that work properly required.


Blackburne J


Gazette 25-Jan-2001, Times 21-Feb-2001, Gazette 05-Apr-2001

Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.80612