The landlords appealed disissal of their request for relief against their tenants for non-repair of the premises. The judge had held that the landlord had not provided appropriate evidence of the damage and costs of repair which it claimed.
Held: The damage to the reversion should have been inferred from the estimated cost of repairing the roof and in addition from the estimated costs of remedying the other breaches found by the judge. Section 18(1) also applied to limit the damages to be awarded for breach the decorating covenant during the term of the lease. A subsequent tenant had himself intended to carry out alterations which would limit the effect of the non-repair. The effect of section 18 is, in any case where its application is in issue between the parties, to require the court to find the amount of the damage to the value of the reversion of the premises caused by the failure to repair. To do this the court has to find the difference between the value of the premises in disrepair on the open market and the value that the premises would have had if there had been no breach of the covenant to repair. It need not do more than find that this difference was at least as great as the amount claimed against the tenant. Though the landlords had failed to provide proper evidence, the effect of the judge’s ruling was to deprive them of their damages, and this invited a closer inspection by the court. It was axiomatic that the defects as found including the repair needed to the roof and the decoration, were likely to affect the value of the premises to a purchaser. A purchaser was likely to want to let the premises or use them himself. There was no suggestion that they were to be pulled down or rebuilt. The correct assessement was for the judge to have inferred diminution in value to the reversion from the estimated costs of any repairs required to be done by the outgoing tenant which the landlord could actually show they had done, applying a discount as necessary.
Judges:
Arden LJ, Wilson LJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1417
Links:
Statutes:
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Joyner v Weeks 1891
The general rule at common law is that the measure of damages for breach of the covenant to repair by a tenant is the cost of putting the premises into the state of repair required by the covenant. . .
Cited – Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth HL 29-Jun-1995
Damages on Construction not as Agreed
The appellant had contracted to build a swimming pool for the respondent, but, after agreeing to alter the specification to construct it to a certain depth, in fact built it to the original lesser depth, Damages had been awarded to the house owner . .
Cited – Hanson v Newman 1934
The basic measure of damages for breach of the covenant to repair is the reasonable costs of executing the repairs required to fulfil the covenant . . .
Cited – Jones v Herxheimer CA 1950
The landlord let the ground floor and four rooms on the first floor to the tenant for one year. The tenant covenanted to keep and deliver up the premises in good and tenantable repair, but was in breach. The landlord redocorated the rooms and relet . .
Cited – Culworth Estates Ltd v Society of Licensed Victuallers 1991
When considering how to measure the landlord’s loss after a breach of the tenant’s covenant to repair, the court may look to any reduced price recovered by the landlord on a sale after the end of the lease. . .
Cited – Gorne v Scales and others CA 29-Mar-2006
Although the damages to be awarded at the end of a lease for the tenant’s breach of his covenant to repair are to be assessed at the time when the lease comes to an end, subsequent events can be taken into account if they relate to the bases of . .
Cited – Firle Investments Ltd v Datapoint International Ltd TCC 8-May-2000
The landlord sought damages for the breach by the tenant of his covenant to repair, and claimed inter alia the estimated costs of repair as set out in a schedule of dilapidations. The tenant claimed there was no damage because the real value of the . .
Cited – Shortland Investments Ltd v Cargill plc 1995
The fact that a subsequent tenant was given a rent free period or was paid a reverse premium to take the premises, could allow a court to infer the extent of damage to the landlord’s reversion caused by the first tenant’s breach of his covenant to . .
Cited – Crewe Services and Investment Corporation v Silk CA 2-Dec-1997
The landlord brought proceedings against the tenant for failure to keep his tenanted farm in a good state of repair. The judge awarded the cost of the landlord doing the repairs himself, making no discount for the possibility that the tenant might . .
Cited – Craven Builders Ltd v Secretary of State for Health 2000
The court considered the measure of damages for a tenant’s failure to comply with his covenant to repair where the premises did have redevelopment potential but a purchaser would still pay more if the premises were in a good state of repair.
Cited – Bonham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel 1948
A party claiming damage for breach of a covenant to repair in a lease must prove that damage. . .
Cited – Crewe Services and Investment Corporation v Silk CA 2-Dec-1997
The landlord brought proceedings against the tenant for failure to keep his tenanted farm in a good state of repair. The judge awarded the cost of the landlord doing the repairs himself, making no discount for the possibility that the tenant might . .
Cited – Haviland v Long CA 1952
The landlord had a right to recover damages from a tenant for breach of an obligation to keep and leave the premises in repair. The landlord entered into a fresh lease with a new tenant who paid the full economic rent and agreed to carry out the . .
Cited – Gemmell v Goldsworthy 1942
A covenant in a lease for periodic decoration is not a covenant to repair because it will have to be performed even if the property is not in poor decorative repair. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.245669