Case news Janet Reger International v Tiree
Language: English Series: Property Week ; 71(31) 4 August 2006, 54(1)Publication details: Subject(s): Summary: [2006] EWHC 1743 (Ch), 17 July 2006. Considers whether a landlord was liable to repair an inherent defect in its premises. Retailer J was forced to leave premises leased from T after a problem with damp, and claimed that T was liable for its losses. T argued it was not liable because the problem was caused by a design fault not covered in the lease, namely a damp-proof membrane in the floor that had not been linked to the damp-proof course in the walls. "Held": there was no implied term in the lease that the landlord would prevent damage to the part of the premises the tenant was liable to repair, therefore the judge found for the landlord.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L134437 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 134437-1001 |
[2006] EWHC 1743 (Ch), 17 July 2006. Considers whether a landlord was liable to repair an inherent defect in its premises. Retailer J was forced to leave premises leased from T after a problem with damp, and claimed that T was liable for its losses. T argued it was not liable because the problem was caused by a design fault not covered in the lease, namely a damp-proof membrane in the floor that had not been linked to the damp-proof course in the walls. "Held": there was no implied term in the lease that the landlord would prevent damage to the part of the premises the tenant was liable to repair, therefore the judge found for the landlord.