Credit Suisse v Beegas Nominees Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1994) 11 EG 151-160; 12 EG 189-197(19)Publication details: 1994Subject(s): Summary: ChD 2 September 1993. By a lease dated 14 December 1977, Beegas Nominees Ltd were held to have been in breach of repairing obligations under an underlease. Under the terms of the lease the landlords had covenanted: "to maintain, repair, amend, renew..." the structure of the building. The tenant made a claim when widespread water penetration and leaks were discovered due to problems with the external cladding system. The tenants sought to recoup their losses arising from what they alleged was the landlords breach of covenant. There was also a separate obligation to keep the premises in good condition. Some contention was raised about the detailed meaning of the clause, the clarity of the wording, and whether it was wide enough to require the landlords to rectify the defects. Held, the landlord was, and had always been in breach of the principal covenant, that substantial damages be awarded the tenant, including £40,000 for the general inconvenience caused to the tenants during their p| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS50488 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 76110-1001 |
ChD 2 September 1993. By a lease dated 14 December 1977, Beegas Nominees Ltd were held to have been in breach of repairing obligations under an underlease. Under the terms of the lease the landlords had covenanted: "to maintain, repair, amend, renew..." the structure of the building. The tenant made a claim when widespread water penetration and leaks were discovered due to problems with the external cladding system. The tenants sought to recoup their losses arising from what they alleged was the landlords breach of covenant. There was also a separate obligation to keep the premises in good condition. Some contention was raised about the detailed meaning of the clause, the clarity of the wording, and whether it was wide enough to require the landlords to rectify the defects. Held, the landlord was, and had always been in breach of the principal covenant, that substantial damages be awarded the tenant, including £40,000 for the general inconvenience caused to the tenants during their p