Sunlife Europe Properties Ltd v Tiger Aspect Holdings Ltd & Anor

Sunlife Europe Properties Ltd v Tiger Aspect Holdings Ltd & Anor

Sunlife is entitled to recover the reasonable cost of remedial works necessary to put the premises into the condition required by the leases, subject to the statutory cap under section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. The statutory cap does not operate to limit recovery in this case because the diminution in value exceeds the cost of repairs. Supersession and mitigation principles apply, but do not materially reduce Sunlife's entitlement. Tiger's obligation was to repair or replace on a like-for-like basis, not to upgrade to modern standards unless required by law.

Parties
Claimant: Sunlife Europe Properties Limited; First Defendant: Tiger Aspect Holdings Limited; Second Defendant: Tiger Television Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Dilapidations, Repairing Covenants, Measure of Damages, Statutory Cap, Supersession, Mitigation, Betterment
Landlord and Tenant Commercial Property Contract Dilapidations Repairing Covenants Measure of Damages Statutory Cap Supersession +2 more

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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunlife Europe Properties Limited

Claimant

Tiger Aspect Holdings Limited

First Defendant

Tiger Television Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the scope of Tiger's obligations under the repairing covenants in the leases?
  2. 2 What is the reasonable cost of putting the building back into the condition required by the leases?
  3. 3 Does the statutory cap under section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 limit Sunlife's recovery?

Ratio Decidendi

Sunlife is entitled to recover the reasonable cost of remedial works necessary to put the premises into the condition required by the leases, subject to the statutory cap under section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. The statutory cap does not operate to limit recovery in this case because the diminution in value exceeds the cost of repairs. Supersession and mitigation principles apply, but do not materially reduce Sunlife's entitlement. Tiger's obligation was to repair or replace on a like-for-like basis, not to upgrade to modern standards unless required by law.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Tiger to pay Sunlife £1,353,254 plus interest at 3% from the date of expiry of the leases.
  • Costs to be determined if not agreed.