Ravenseft Properties Ltd v Davstone (Holdings) Ltd

Work to remedy a defect in the design of a building can fall within a tenant's repairing covenant, as long as it does not change the whole character of the building.

Citation
[1980] QB 12
Court
Queen's Bench Division
Year
1980
Subject
Land Law
Topic
Leasehold covenants and forfeiture

Facts

The tenant of a block of flats covenanted to repair the building. The stone cladding on the building began to come away, because no expansion joints had been included when the building was constructed, which was a design defect. The landlord carried out work to secure the cladding and insert expansion joints, and sought to recover the cost from the tenant under the repairing covenant. The tenant argued that this was an improvement, not a repair.

Legal principle

Forbes J held that the work was repair. He said that it is a question of degree whether work is repair or so changes the character of the building that it amounts to giving back to the landlord a wholly different thing from that which was demised. The insertion of expansion joints was a small part of the cost and was the only sensible way to repair the building. There is no rule that work to remedy an inherent defect can never be repair.

Related cases on leasehold covenants and forfeiture

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.

Back to all law cases

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.

Contact Us

Enquire about our bespoke academic solutions