Repairs — Case referred back — Whether repairs proposed by Landlords would have complied with covenant
This was a reference back to Vaisey, J of an
action heard by him on June 4, 1958, when he held that the landlords, Freehold
Investments (Leytonstone) Ltd, were liable for repairs to the roof and cement
rendering on the front wall of the Century Cinema, High Road, Leytonstone,
occupied by the tenants, Granada Theatres Ltd. These proceedings were reported
in the Estates Gazette of June 21, 1958. The landlords appealed to the Court of
Appeal in March, 1959, and the proceedings were reported in The Estates Gazette
of April 25, 1959.
The matter was referred back to his Lordship to
determine whether, in the light of the Court of Appeal’s decision, certain
repairs to the roof proposed by the landlords would have complied with their
covenant.
Mr H Heathcote-Williams QC and Mr John Vinelott
(instructed by Messrs Harewood & Co) appeared for the landlords, and Mr RE
Megarry, QC and Mr Oliver Lodge (instructed by Messrs EF Turner & Sons)
represented the tenants.
Giving judgment, Vaisey, J, said that he did not
see how he could find as a matter of fact that a schedule of work proposed by
the defendants at a cost of £130 would have constituted compliance with the
covenant, however carried out. He felt that the onus was on the landlords, and
he did not feel that the work they specified ‘would’, not ‘might’, have
constituted compliance. He did not know enough of the repairer’s methods of
business. The repairer might have construed the schedule of repairs with
generosity. It might be that in all the circumstances the man to whom the
estimate was given would have felt sure that the proposals would be all right.
But the covenant was much stronger. There was no
mention in the estimate of some of the stringent words in the covenant —
‘repair, maintain and keep the roof in good structural repair and condition at
all times’. These words represented a very strong obligation. He (Vaisey, J)
was unable to say that carrying out repairs proposed by the landlords would
have constituted compliance with the covenant.
Judgment was given for the tenants for an agreed
sum of £700 in respect of all repairs to the cinema.
