Goldmile Properties Ltd. v Lechouritis

Goldmile Properties Ltd. v Lechouritis

The lessor does not breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment if, in performing necessary repairs, all reasonable steps are taken to minimise disturbance; the obligation is to act reasonably, not to take all possible precautions.

Parties
Defendant/appellant: Goldmile Properties Limited; Claimant/respondent: Speiro Lechouritis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendant/appellant restored.
Legal Topics
Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment, Repairing Covenant, Lease Interpretation, Damages for Loss of Profit, Reasonableness in Performance of Covenants
Landlord and Tenant Law Contract Law Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment Repairing Covenant Lease Interpretation Damages for Loss of Profit Reasonableness in Performance of Covenants

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goldmile Properties Limited

Defendant/appellant

Speiro Lechouritis

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a lessor performing a repairing covenant breaches the covenant for quiet enjoyment if all reasonable steps are taken but not all possible precautions
  2. 2 How to reconcile conflicting covenants in a lease

Ratio Decidendi

The lessor does not breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment if, in performing necessary repairs, all reasonable steps are taken to minimise disturbance; the obligation is to act reasonably, not to take all possible precautions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendant/appellant restored.

Orders

  • Order of District Judge Russell dated 31 January 2002 restored.
  • Respondent to pay appellant’s costs here and below, to be determined in accordance with the Community Legal Services (Costs) Regulations 2000.