Harmohinder Singh Gill (as Trustee of the Gilcrest UK Pension Scheme) v Lees News Limited
[2023] EWHC 403 (Ch)
Peachside Limited v Koon Yau Lee & Anor
23 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 921 (TCC)
High Court
A landlord sued a tenant for leaving a building in a mess. The landlord fixed it, but the tenant argued the repairs were too expensive and unnecessary. The judge mostly agreed with the landlord, saying the repairs were reasonable, except for one item (a goods lift). The landlord won a large amount of money to cover the costs of fixing the building and lost rental income.
Key Facts
- •Dilapidations case concerning a business tenancy of a former textile warehouse in Manchester.
- •Lease expired in 2017, defendants vacated in 2021 leaving premises in disrepair.
- •Claimant undertook repairs in two phases: Phase 1 (strip out and repairs) and Phase 2 (redevelopment for office space).
- •Defendants argued that the works were unnecessary, involved betterment, exceeded diminution in value, and would be rendered valueless by redevelopment.
- •Disputes centered on the necessity and cost of the repairs, and the application of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927.
Legal Principles
Tenant's obligation to return premises in good tenantable condition; landlord cannot recover for avoidable loss or disproportionate work; tenant not liable for work rendered abortive by necessary upgrading.
Sunlife Europe Properties v Tiger Aspect Holdings [2013] EWHC 463 (TCC)
Section 18(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1927: Damages capped by diminution in value of reversion; no damages if premises to be pulled down or structurally altered.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, s.18(1)
Diminution in value can be inferred from the cost of reasonably necessary repairs.
Sunlife Europe Properties v Tiger Aspect Holdings [2013] EWCA Civ 1656
Outcomes
Judgment for the claimant in the principal sum of £542,671.17.
The court preferred the claimant's evidence regarding the necessity and reasonableness of the repairs, except for the goods lift/hoist. The court found that the cost of the repairs did not exceed the diminution in value of the reversion and that the redevelopment did not render the repairs valueless.
Claim for goods lift/hoist replacement rejected.
The court found insufficient evidence that the claimant genuinely intended to replace the goods lift and that it would be reasonable or add value to do so given the planned passenger lift installation.
Claim for loss of rent partially allowed (£100,000).
The court considered the defendants' conduct in delaying vacating the premises and the claimant's decisions regarding the repair works. A global sum was awarded.
Similar Cases
Robert Brown v Frazer Ulrick & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2041 (Ch)
Avon Grounds Rents Limited v Kirstie Ward
[2023] UKUT 88 (LC)
Firstport Property Services Limited v Various Leaseholders of Switch House
[2023] UKUT 219 (LC)
Harmohinder Singh Gill (as Trustee of the Gillcrest UK Pension Scheme) v Lees News Limited
[2023] EWCA Civ 1178