Cases - Gibson Investments Ltd v Chesterton plc (No. 1)
Record details
- Name
- Gibson Investments Ltd v Chesterton plc (No. 1)
- Date
- [2002]; [2002]
- Citation
- EWHC 19 (Ch); All ER (D) 67, Ch D
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Commercial property - property management - dilapidations - Steel frame building and corrosion
- Summary
-
Where it is contended that the repair work should extend to eradicating the problem, rather than being limited to prophylactic measures, the cases establish, first, that the work will not be repair if it involves giving back to the landlord something wholly different from that which he demised, but, second, there will be circumstances in which such work can be repair even though it involves adding something to the property that was not there originally, as in Ravenseft and Elmcroft.
Steel frame building and corrosion - There were three options for treatment of the steel frame. But which should be carried out? The judge said:
'First, in my judgement, the first scheme, if carried out, unlike the second or third schemes, would not result in the building being in repair even at the moment that the works were completed. The continued presence of laminating rust in areas adjacent to places where the laminated rust has caused cracking would, in my view, constitute disrepair. The rusting is substantial, and the rusting that the second scheme would involve removing would be in runs that have already caused cracking. If there is a run of laminated rust that has not caused cracking, there would be no need to deal with it under the second scheme. The fact that the structural function of the steel frame is not currently under threat does not, in my view, call this conclusion into question. It appears to me that the fact that laminating rusting has already caused significant cracking in places means that one cannot say that the building is in repair if there are runs of laminating rusting that have caused the cracking.'
'Second, it seems to me that it would be inappropriate not to carry out the extra remedial work involved in the second scheme over the first scheme at the same time as repairing the cracks in the stonework and brickwork. In this connection, I consider that the present case is comparable with cases such as [Elmcroft Developments Ltd v Tankersley-Sawyer]. In that case, the landlord was obliged, under his repairing covenant, to install a damp-proof course to eliminate rising damp, rather than to carry on replacing the plaster as and when it became soft. Much the same can be said about the first scheme, as against the second scheme or (if it works) the third scheme. The effect of implementing the second or third schemes (costing about £1m at the most) should obviate the need for any significant work to the exterior walls for the remaining 11 or so years of the lease, and possibly much longer than that. The first scheme works, if carried out, costing a little over £400,000, will probably have to be repeated some three times before the lease ends.'