At the end of the lease, the tenant had not complied with his covenant to repair. The court considered the damages which might be awarded.
Held: The court may take into account events which had not yet occurred but which threw a light on the condition of the property at the end of the lease.
Denning LJ said: ‘In cases where it is plain that the repairs are not going to be done by the landlord, the cost of them is little or no guide to the diminution in value of the reversion, which may be nominal: see Espir v Basil Street Hotel, and James v Hatton. B ut in cases where the repairs have been, or are going to be, done by the landlord, the cost may be a very real guide. That is shown by the recent case of Jones v Herxheimer to which we were referred. In cases where it is open to question whether the repairs will be done by the landlord, as in the present case, then the costs may afford a starting figure; but it should be scaled down according to the circumstances, remembering that the real question is : What is the injury to the reversion? That is what the Judge did here, as I read his judgment: he used the cost merely as an aid in assessing the diminution in value of the reversion. I do not think that I should myself have given so much weight to the cost of repairs; or, at any rate, having regard to the requisition I should have scaled down the figure considerably just as damages for breach of covenant to keep in repair during the term are scaled down according to the length of time unexpired: see Conquest v Ebbetts.’
Judges:
Denning LJ
Citations:
[1950] 2 KB 311
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lyndendown Ltd v Vitamol Ltd CA 6-Jul-2007
At the end of the lease, the subtenant had failed to comply with his obligation to repair the property, leaving the head tenant liable to the landlord. The landlord had issued a letter which forgave the tenant from his obligations.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.259149