Image from Google Jackets

Niazi Services Ltd v Johannes Marinus Henricus van der Loo

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [2004] 17 EG 130-135(6)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2004] EWCA (Civ) 53, 10 February 2004. Appeal by claimant (N), long leaseholder of a flat resided in by respondent sub-tenant (V), against the judge's order of damages in favour of V in respect of disrepair of items suffered by V, in particular, inadequate water pressure. N appealed on the grounds that it had no liability for the water pressure problems, caused by pipework installed elsewhere in the building.The court had to consider the construction of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s11(1A)(b)(i) under which the landlord's duty extends to the maintenance of any installation which forms part of any part of a building in which the lessor has an estate. "Held" appeal allowed in part. No previous authority provided guidance in the construction of S11(1A)(b)(i) of the Act and the statute referred to an installation that formed part of any part of a building not to one that formedpart of a building in which the lessor had an estate or interest. The true construction was that the appellant's maintenance liabilities encompassed only those parts of the building in which it had an interest. V failed to demonstrate that N had such an interest in the part of the building where the defective installation was located.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS67530 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 125289-1001

[2004] EWCA (Civ) 53, 10 February 2004. Appeal by claimant (N), long leaseholder of a flat resided in by respondent sub-tenant (V), against the judge's order of damages in favour of V in respect of disrepair of items suffered by V, in particular, inadequate water pressure. N appealed on the grounds that it had no liability for the water pressure problems, caused by pipework installed elsewhere in the building.The court had to consider the construction of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 s11(1A)(b)(i) under which the landlord's duty extends to the maintenance of any installation which forms part of any part of a building in which the lessor has an estate. "Held" appeal allowed in part. No previous authority provided guidance in the construction of S11(1A)(b)(i) of the Act and the statute referred to an installation that formed part of any part of a building not to one that formedpart of a building in which the lessor had an estate or interest. The true construction was that the appellant's maintenance liabilities encompassed only those parts of the building in which it had an interest. V failed to demonstrate that N had such an interest in the part of the building where the defective installation was located.