Petersson and others v Pitt Place (Epsom) Ltd
Series: Property, Planning and Compensation Reports ; [2001] 82 P&CR 276-285(5)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: CA 19 January 2001. A were the freehold owners of a substantial complex of flats. B were the tenants of three of the flats in block C of the complex. The issue on appeal was whether A was liable to repair the roof terraces of the flats in block C. A had covenanted by clause 4(c) of the Leases to 'maintain and keep in good and substantial repairƯthe main structure of the building'. A appealed against the CC's ruling that the roof terraces formed part of 'the main structure or roof thereof', and thus that they were liable for their repair. Appeal allowed on the grounds that the tenant of the upper flat had also covenanted, in the lease, to repair and maintain the roof terraces. Applying the presumption against impractical overlapping obligations, 'main structure' should be construed to exclude roof terraces.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS64570 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 114870-1001 |
CA 19 January 2001. A were the freehold owners of a substantial complex of flats. B were the tenants of three of the flats in block C of the complex. The issue on appeal was whether A was liable to repair the roof terraces of the flats in block C. A had covenanted by clause 4(c) of the Leases to 'maintain and keep in good and substantial repairƯthe main structure of the building'. A appealed against the CC's ruling that the roof terraces formed part of 'the main structure or roof thereof', and thus that they were liable for their repair. Appeal allowed on the grounds that the tenant of the upper flat had also covenanted, in the lease, to repair and maintain the roof terraces. Applying the presumption against impractical overlapping obligations, 'main structure' should be construed to exclude roof terraces.