Repairs and alterations

Repairing covenants

The scope of a repairing obligation in a lease can vary widely according to the specific wording of the particular clause and the circumstances of the letting. The tenant's repairing covenant interacts with other provisions in the lease (including those dealing with insurance, rent review and service charge), and any deficiencies within it can have a significant impact on the parties' liabilities and/or remedies in the event of a dispute.

A covenant to 'keep in repair' includes an obligation to put the property into the appropriate standard of repair, even if it is in disrepair at the date of grant.

The meaning of 'repair' is found in case law. Key principles include that:

  1. repair is not improvement - liability ‘to repair’ cannot arise in the absence of disrepair

  2. repair is distinct from renewal or replacement - replacement will only be justifiable in place of continuing repair if it is reasonable in the circumstances. The costs of repair and replacement will feature heavily in any decision.

  3. liability for inherent or latent defects depends on the express terms of the lease and the particular circumstances

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at FA 2003, s 75A applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents