Repairing covenants Tenant’s covenant to repair Landlord’s covenant/Service charge ▪...
-
Upload
ralf-chandler -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
0
Transcript of Repairing covenants Tenant’s covenant to repair Landlord’s covenant/Service charge ▪...
Repairing covenants Tenant’s covenant to repair Landlord’s covenant/Service charge▪ Vacation self-study exercise
Landlord’s remedies
Implied obligations (p.1) To use in tenant-like manner To give business efficacy to the
agreement
Tenant’s covenant to repair Lease of whole/part Interaction with other provisions▪ Look at “Repair” and “Demised Premises”
together
Meaning of “repair” Dictionary definition? Drafting Case law – little statutory guidance
Qualifications to “repair” (pp.1-2) “Good and substantial” “Tenantable” Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe v McOscar
“Repair” and “renewal” Lurcott v Wakeley and Wheeler – although
“repair” can contain elements of renewal, repair and renewal are different concepts
Credit Suisse v Beegas – (L’s covenant to repair)▪ “to repair, amend, renew… and otherwise keep in good
and tenantable condition”; reference to “… defect or want of repair…”
▪ Verbs “amend” and “renew” considered in addition to “repair”
▪ Although replacement of cladding to building too extensive for “repair”, it fell within “renew and amend”
“Good condition” Welsh v Greenwich – flat suffered mould
inside due to condensation caused by lack of insulation – chattels damaged not structure▪ “to maintain the dwelling in good condition and
repair”▪ “Good condition” a separate concept and
additional to “repair” – not limited to structural condition
▪ Held – failure to maintain in good condition
“Repair” and “disrepair” Post Office v Aquarius – before liability
arises under a covenant to repair there must be disrepair – unusual facts
New office building let in 1969; defect in structure of basement
Water table rose 1979-1984 – basement flooded; 1984 water table subsided – no damage caused by defect
No liability to improve to remove defect
Standard of repair Proudfoot v Hart – 3 year lease – “keep
premises in good tenantable repair” Obligation was to put and keep Having regard to age/character of locality,
making reasonably fit for occupation by tenant of class likely to take it
Distinguish Anstruther – 95 year lease, so Proudfoot standard did not apply - would mean fluctuating standard depending on tenants/neighbourhood – so standard assessed at start of term
Scope of repairing covenant (p. 2, para (f)) Put and keep Inherent defects can fall under repairing
covenant▪ Ravenseft v Davstone – cladding loose and dangerous
– lengthy repairing covenant▪ Repair doesn’t mean giving back a different thing (Lister v
Lane) but it is a matter of fact and degree▪ Use ratio of cost of works to value of property
▪ Stent v Monmouth and Creska v Hammersmith – considering replacement/expense use “sensible man” criterion
Summary of relevant factors to determine whether repair (p.3)
Amending tenant’s covenant to repair (p.4) Exclude inherent defects Exclude insured risks Schedule of condition Fair wear and tear excepted
Landlord’s re-entry clause
Relevance - lease of part/internal demise/unit on estate (p.5) Service charges
Check Landlord’s covenant – to provide services
Tenant’s amendments: See Vacation self-study exercise Look mainly at services
provided/expenses Few legal points – mainly commercial
Yielding up in repair
Decoration
Damages s18 LTA 1927 - ceiling Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938
Forfeiture Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938
Self-help Jervis v Harris (debt)
Specific Performance Rainbow Estates v Tokenhold