| The case:
Riverside Property Investments v Blackhawk Automotive (8 December 2004)
[2005] 01 EG 94 (CS) raised the issue of the adequacy of a tenant’s
repairs to an asbestos –corrugated roof, when the landlord’s
view was that only complete replacement with a new insulated metal profile
covering would do.
Could the landlord specify what works had to be done before the lease expired
or were the tenant’s repairs sufficient?
The court held that the repairs undertaken by the tenant were sufficient
to put the roof into good and substantial repair which was all that was required
by the lease. A repairing obligation does not require the tenant to put premises
into perfect repair.
The facts:
The property in question was a light industrial unit build in 1977 with
a pitched roof made of asbestos cement sheets let to the tenant under a 5
year lease expiring in September 2002.
There was a dispute that the roof had been out of repair shortly before
the lease ended in September 2002. The tenant had overhauled the roof and
replaced all perished materials at a cost of £40,000.
The landlord maintained that complete replacement of the roof was needed
and notwithstanding the tenant’s repair, replaced the roof in its entirety.
The landlord claimed from the tenant the cost of replacement of over £87,000
and fees of £36,000.
The court held that in cases involving a dispute over replacement and repair,
replacement would be required only if repair was not reasonably or sensibly
possible. If the covenant could properly be performed in one of two ways,
the tenant was entitled to choose which method to use and could not be criticised
for choosing the least expensive option. The continued presence of asbestos
in the original roof sheets that had not been replaced, could not be a reason
to contend that the tenant had breached its repairing obligations.
Costs:
The cost of reports or investigations carried out on behalf of the landlord
which were not communicated to the tenant at the time was not recoverable.
The cost of the landlord’s multiple visits (effected without notice)
before and during the tenant’s works were unreasonable.
Advice to landlords:
Replacement can only be required if repairs are not reasonably or sensibly
possible. A landlord cannot usually stipulate how a tenant should carry out
works.
Advice to tenants:
If a tenant is not to follow a landlord’s dilapidations schedule,
it must justify the decision. Expert advice should be taken and followed.
Who
can help?
If you would like further advice about repairing obligations under
leases of commercial premises please get in touch with your usual contact
at plainlaw or Philip Horn on 01865 240202 or e-mail him at philip.horn@plainlaw.co.uk
This
edition of “The Law made plain” is written to provide you
with general information. It is recommended that you seek specific
professional advice before taking any action.
© Copyright plainlaw 2005
< back
|
