Appellant owning leasehold of flat on top floor of building — Damage to water supply as result of works undertaken on other premises in same building — Whether appellant liable to respondent tenant under section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 — Appeal allowed
The appellant was the long leaseholder of the respondent tenant’s flat, which was situated at the top of a four-storey block. The property had a number of defects, including a problem with the water supply. This had arisen following the installation of pipework servicing a restaurant on the ground floor. The respondent withheld his rent and the appellants commenced proceedings. The respondent counterclaimed in respect of the items of disrepair.
At first instance, the judge had found that the appellant was liable for the various defects, including the failure of the water supply, and had ordered damages accordingly.
The appellant appealed on the ground, inter alia, that it was not responsible for the problems with the water supply. The question that the court had to consider was the true meaning of section 11(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Housing Act 1988, and the implied covenants therein; in particular, the construction of section 11(1A)(b)(i), under which the landlord’s duty extended to the maintenance of any installation “which forms part of any part of a building in which the lessor has an estate”.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
Section 11(1A)(b)(i) could be construed in two ways, and no previous authority could provide guidance. If a landlord had an interest or estate in a building, that interest would extend either: (i) to the whole building, and the landlord would therefore be responsible for the entire installation wherever it was sited within that building; or (ii) only to the particular part of the building in which the landlord had the estate or interest.
The statute did not refer to an installation that formed “part of a building in which the lessor has an estate or interest” but to an installation that formed “part of any part of a building”. Therefore, on a true construction of section 11(1A)(b)(i), the appellant’s duty to maintain the pipework encompassed only that part of the building in which it had an interest.
The respondent was accordingly required to show that the appellant had an estate or interest in that part of the building in which the defective section of the installation was located. Having failed to do so, the respondent had no redress against the appellant under the statute.
Tim Cowen (instructed by Child & Child) appeared for the appellant; James Browne (instructed by Dutton Gregory, of Southampton) appeared for the respondent.
Vivienne Lane, barrister