A contractual right of entry may not go far enough
A landlord wishing to refurbish a residential block, but who cannot do so without access to one or more of the flats, should not lightly assume that he can proceed under a right of entry provided for in the lease or leases.
The lessee can rightly object unless the relevant covenant makes it very clear that it extends to work additional to work required under the repairing provisions: see Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Bodentien-Meyrick [2002] 24 EG 147 (CS), where the Court of Appeal held that “execute any repairs or works” could not make the desired inroad into the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
In theory, there is no reason why commercial leases should be differently construed, but it is suggested that borderline cases could go the other way because the quiet enjoyment covenant is less potent in the circumstances.
A contractual right of entry may not go far enough
A landlord wishing to refurbish a residential block, but who cannot do so without access to one or more of the flats, should not lightly assume that he can proceed under a right of entry provided for in the lease or leases.
The lessee can rightly object unless the relevant covenant makes it very clear that it extends to work additional to work required under the repairing provisions: see Yeoman’s Row Management Ltd v Bodentien-Meyrick [2002] 24 EG 147 (CS), where the Court of Appeal held that “execute any repairs or works” could not make the desired inroad into the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
In theory, there is no reason why commercial leases should be differently construed, but it is suggested that borderline cases could go the other way because the quiet enjoyment covenant is less potent in the circumstances.
