Jervis v Harris
A landlord who exercises a right to enter and carry out repairs that the tenant has failed to do can recover the cost as a debt, without serving notice under the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938.
Facts
A lease of business premises contained a covenant by the tenant to repair, and a clause allowing the landlord, if the tenant failed to repair after notice, to enter the premises, carry out the repairs itself and recover the cost from the tenant as a debt. The tenant failed to repair, the landlord carried out the works, and sued for the cost. The tenant argued that the landlord was claiming damages for breach of the repairing covenant, so it needed the court's permission under the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the landlord's claim was for a debt, not damages, so the 1938 Act did not apply. Millett LJ said that the landlord's claim was for money due under an express covenant in the lease to pay the cost of the repairs, rather than a claim for damages for breach of the covenant to repair. Such clauses, often called Jervis v Harris clauses, give landlords an effective remedy for tenants' failure to repair.
Related cases on leasehold covenants and forfeiture
- Akici v LR Butlin Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1296, [2006] 1 WLR 201
- Avonridge Property Co Ltd v Mashru [2005] UKHL 70, [2005] 1 WLR 3956
- Billson v Residential Apartments Ltd [1992] 1 AC 494
- City of London Corporation v Fell [1994] 1 AC 458
- Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1
- Duke of Westminster v Guild [1985] QB 688
- Expert Clothing Service & Sales Ltd v Hillgate House Ltd [1986] Ch 340
- Glass v Kencakes Ltd [1966] 1 QB 611
Studying land law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
