Back
Legal

PP 2002/15

The liberal use made by draftsmen of the words “structure” and “structural” has not surprisingly posed problems where the component alleged to fall within a repairing or service charge obligation has no load-bearing function. The list of troublesome items includes doors and windows, roof terraces and balconies. Fortunately a very useful review of the relevant authorities (including the Court of Appeal decision in Petersson and others v Pitt Place (Epsom) Ltd [2001] EGCS 13) may be found in the judgment of Rimer J in Ibrahim v Dovecorn Reversions Ltd [2001] EGCS 37.
As a rough guide (with all that that implies) one can start on the basis that such a component:
* is prima facie structural if it contributes to the essential shape and appearance of the building;
* will not be so considered if such an interpretation would lead to an overlapping of the parties’ repairing covenants;
* may not be so considered if the clause refers to the “main structure”, but that point is not decisive.
Ibrahim is carefully reviewed by Sandi Murdoch in Out on the terrace Estates Gazette 8 September 2001, p178.

Up next…