Cases - Mason v TotalFinaElf

Record details

Name
Mason v TotalFinaElf
Date
(2003); [2003]
Citation
EG 145, CS; EWHC 1604, Ch
Legislation
Keywords
Landlord and tenant – covenant for tenant to keep the property ‘in good condition’ – dilapidations claim – whether the landlord had a valid dilapidations claim
Summary

This was a dilapidations case where the tenant covenanted that it would

'to the satisfaction of the Lessor's Surveyor well and substantially uphold, support, maintain, amend, repair, decorate and keep in good condition the demised premises ...'.

The landlord brought a claim for dilapidations and it was held that:

  1. wording of the covenant presupposed that the item in question suffered from some defect (physical damage, deterioration or malfunctioning), such that repair, amendment or renewal was necessary.
  2. was no authority for the proposition that purely anticipatory, preventive work, where no damage or deterioration in the condition had yet occurred, could be called for or the reasonable cost of it recovered. The fact that a piece of equipment was old, and would inevitably have to be replaced in time, did not mean preventive works could be required to prevent the consequence of the equipment failing where, in the meantime, it continued to perform its function.

As to standard of repair the court noted that:

'It was common ground that clause 3(4), with its reference to "well and substantially", does not require that the premises be kept in perfect repair. Equally, it was common ground that the standard to be applied should be such as, having regard to the age, character and locality of the premises at the start of the lease, would make the premises reasonably fit for a reasonably minded tenant of a class who would be likely, at that time, to take the premises, and that the appropriate standard does not alter during the term of the lease in the sense that changes in the character of the locality of the premises, or of the class of person likely to take them, do not elevate or depress what would otherwise be the standard: see, generally, Proudfoot v Hart (1890) and Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe v McOscar (1924).'