Janet Reger International Ltd v Tiree Ltd [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2006Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2006] EWHC 1743 (Ch), 17 July 2006. Considers whether a landlord was liable to repair an inherent defect in its premises. 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.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 136810-2001 |
[2006] EWHC 1743 (Ch), 17 July 2006. Considers whether a landlord was liable to repair an inherent defect in its premises. 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.