Goldmile Properties Ltd. v Lechouritis [2003] EWCA Civ 49 (29 January 2003)

Goldmile Properties Ltd. v Lechouritis [2003] EWCA Civ 49 (29 January 2003)

A lessor does not breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment when performing repairing obligations under a lease if all reasonable steps are taken to minimise disturbance to the tenant; the standard is reasonableness, not all possible precautions.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 49
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 Obligations, Lease Construction, Reasonableness Standard
Landlord and Tenant Contract Law Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment Repairing Obligations Lease Construction Reasonableness Standard

Source-derived case record

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 repairing obligations breaches the covenant for quiet enjoyment if all reasonable steps are taken to minimise disturbance, or only if all possible precautions are taken
  2. 2 How to reconcile conflicting covenants in a lease

Ratio Decidendi

A lessor does not breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment when performing repairing obligations under a lease if all reasonable steps are taken to minimise disturbance to the tenant; the standard is reasonableness, not 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.