Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
a landlord recover the cost of terrorism insurance as part of the service charge? In Qdime, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decided that, on the terms of the relevant leases, the cost of insuring against a terrorist incident was recoverable.
Qdime v Bath Building (Swindon) Management Company  UKUT 0261 (LC)
In Qdime, a freehold building contained 13 flats. The tenants of 11 of the flats challenged the inclusion of the cost of terrorism insurance in the service charge. The landlord argued that the cost was recoverable as:
The leases were in common form. The landlord covenanted:
'To keep the Building including the Demised Premises insured to its full reinstatement value against loss or damage by fire and the usual comprehensive risks in accordance with the CML [Council of Mortgage Lenders] recommendations in that respect from
time to time and such other risks as the Landlord may in its reasonable discretion think fit to insure against....'
The tenants covenanted to pay the costs of such an insurance policy and by virtue of another lease provision, ultimately paid them as part of the service charge as being expenses reasonably and properly incurred in each 'Maintenance Year'.
The CML guidance sets out a list of potentially insurable risks. The words 'terrorism' or 'terrorist activities' are not listed, but 'explosion' is. The landlord argued that the word 'explosion' should be given its ordinary meaning and so clearly included
explosions caused by terrorism.
The Tribunal agreed. In addition, the obligation was to insure against explosion, but not against any particular method by which an explosion might be caused.
In case it was wrong in its conclusion, the Tribunal went on to consider whether the landlord had exercised its reasonable discretion in procuring terrorism insurance in accordance with the obligation to insure against such other risks as it thought fit.
It decided on the evidence that the landlord had exercised discretion in procuring the insurance. It also decided that the landlord's discretion had been exercised reasonably.
The Tribunal's only function was to conclude whether or not a lawful decision had been reached in the circumstances, and was within the range of reasonable decisions, as opposed to it being construed as a perverse decision. Exercising a discretion so
as to accord with the RICS Code was a reasonable exercise of discretion. The Code provides that '...serious consideration should be given to the taking out of terrorism insurance'. It does not link the acquisition of insurance to the risk posed in
any given case. The nature of insurance is that one is guarding against unpredictable and unexpected events. Guidance of this sort was to be afforded great respect and departures from its terms should be well-reasoned and justified.
While the decision relates to residential premises, it is of potentially of wider application. Some tenants argue that property insurance is more for the benefit of the landlord than the tenant and that at least the tenant's contribution to the terrorism
premium should be limited or capped in some way. Tenants' lawyers should explain to their clients that even if the lease does not oblige them specifically to pay the costs of insuring against terrorist acts, if they are obliged to pay for insurance
against explosion, then this will include explosions caused by terrorism.
This article was written by Joanna Bhatia, solicitor in the Lexis®PSL Property team and was first published in
on 16 June 2014. Click here for a free one week trial of Lexis®PSL Property.
0330 161 1234