Cases - Sun Life Assurance plc v Thales Tracs Ltd
Record details
- Name
- Sun Life Assurance plc v Thales Tracs Ltd
- Date
- [2001]
- Citation
- 20 EG 230
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Dilapidations case law - Lease renewal - compensation
- Summary
-
The tenant made a request for a new tenancy under section 26(1) of the 1954 Act. At the time that it made the request, the tenant knew that the landlord intended to redevelop the premises. Moreover, the tenant had secured other premises and had no intention of renewing the tenancy. The tenant's request for a new tenancy was therefore made only for the purpose of obtaining compensation for disturbance under section 37 of the 1954 Act. The landlord argued that since the intention to renew was not genuine, the tenant should not be entitled to compensation. The Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that whether or not the tenant actually intended to renew was irrelevant to the question of compensation.
Roofs (including asbestos roofing sheets and tiles) - Some of the roofs under consideration were constructed of corrugated asbestos sheeting and another was constructed of asbestos tiles laid like conventional slates. There were, before the court, 2 options for repairing the defects to the roofs. One option (the landlord's), for which it was common ground, would provide an adequate repair and the tenant's recommendation, which might produce an adequate repair. There was no evidence before the judge that it would be possible to apply the tenant's solution to one of the roofs, it being outside the tenant's surveyor's expertise to say whether it was possible. The judge was left with no alternative but to hold that the landlord's suggestion, that the roof in question should be entirely overclad with profiled steel sheets, was the appropriate method of repair.
The Court of Appeal held that a tenant may make a section 26 request purely to obtain compensation since there was no requirement in section 26 that the tenant need state his intention or belief.