Cases - Postel Properties Ltd and another v Boots the Chemist
Record details
- Name
- Postel Properties Ltd and another v Boots the Chemist
- Date
- [1996]; [1996]
- Citation
- 41 EG 164, QB; 2 EGLR 60, QBD
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Commercial property - landlord and tenant – repairs – whether the repairs carried out by landlord were reasonable – whether the works carried out by the landlord served a useful purpose - dilapidations
- Summary
-
Landlords carried out repairs to low-level roofs and upper windows of a large shopping centre. The flat low-level roofs, which were constructed in 1975 and 1976 with a maximum life expectancy of 20 years, were re-covered under a phased programme. The tenants argued that the replacement of the roof covering was premature and the specification was increased to a point where there was an irrecoverable excess, and that the work to the windows was due to rust which could have been contained with timeous maintenance.
It was held that the repairs to the roof were repairs that a reasonably-minded building owner might undertake and they did not amount to giving back to the landlord something different from that which existed before. It was reasonable to commence them when the landlord did, notwithstanding that some parts had not yet failed. However, the landlord was not able to recover the cost of priming the roof troughs, as this served no useful purpose, as they showed no evidence of deterioration. The works to the windows and cladding were repairs, and, insofar as the landlord may have been guilty of delay in carrying out such works, that was more than balanced by the saved costs of earlier repainting.
Where part of the property that is within the covenant does fall into disrepair, then notwithstanding that some part of it is not in disrepair, replacement of the whole can amount to repair, in this case a phased replacement of the roof.
It was noted in Quick v Taff-Ely Borough Council (1985) that where the subject matter of the repairing covenant was not out of repair, notwithstanding the presence of some otherwise appalling conditions, there was no breach of the covenant. However, the position would appear, possibly, to be different if the covenant is to keep the property in good condition.