- Liability for costs of repair (City of London v Leaseholders of Great Arthur House)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Property Disputes analysis: The court determined that the leaseholders of Great Arthur House were not liable (subject to some exceptions), under the terms of their leases to contribute to substantial works to the structure and exterior of the building which were being carried out by the reversioner, the City of London Corporation. The scope of the landlord’s ability under the leases at Great Arthur House to recover the sums it expended on ‘specified repairs’, did not extend to structural defects, even when works of repair (in the form of remedying damage and deterioration over the time during which the defect has existed) would be carried out at the same time. The case considers the interplay between remedying structural defects and repair and the sometimes overlapping nature of the two concepts. The case is therefore of relevance to anyone advising in the field of Landlord & Tenant law, and will be of interest to many lessees and landlords who wish to understand the scope of their obligations and liabilities under existing leases. Written by Oliver Park, associate at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial