Murray v Birmingham City Council
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 283(6349) 29 August 1987, 962-964(3)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 2 June 1987 Appeal by the tenant challenging an assistant recorder`s decision that the landlords` implied covenant under Housing Act 1961 s32 (now replaced by Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ss11-16) did not require them to repair the roof of a terraced house let on a weekly tenancy. There had been a history of incidents of disrepair affecting the roof which the landlords had sooner or later attended to. Assistant recorder in cc found as a fact that at the material time the roof was capable of being repaired by periodical attention,and had not yet reached the stage where the only solution was its complete replacement. Tenant appealed, submitting that, on the evidence, continued piecemeal repair had become a hopeless proposition, CA held that the evidence did not support the submission that piecemeal repair had become impracticable so that the time had come for complete replacement. The assistant recorder had correctly directed himself as to the relevant law and had made no error in h| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS38087 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 8653-1001 |
CA 2 June 1987 Appeal by the tenant challenging an assistant recorder`s decision that the landlords` implied covenant under Housing Act 1961 s32 (now replaced by Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 ss11-16) did not require them to repair the roof of a terraced house let on a weekly tenancy. There had been a history of incidents of disrepair affecting the roof which the landlords had sooner or later attended to. Assistant recorder in cc found as a fact that at the material time the roof was capable of being repaired by periodical attention,and had not yet reached the stage where the only solution was its complete replacement. Tenant appealed, submitting that, on the evidence, continued piecemeal repair had become a hopeless proposition, CA held that the evidence did not support the submission that piecemeal repair had become impracticable so that the time had come for complete replacement. The assistant recorder had correctly directed himself as to the relevant law and had made no error in h