Holding & Barnes Plc v Hill House Hammond Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1334 (20 July 2001)

Holding & Barnes Plc v Hill House Hammond Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1334 (20 July 2001)

The words in brackets in clause 4.3 of the Barking lease were an obvious clerical error, and should be deleted by construction. The landlord's repairing obligation should be construed as extending to the foundations, roof, structure, and exterior of the property, as in the Ilford lease. This interpretation best reflects the parties' intention and the factual matrix of the transaction.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1334
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Holding & Barnes PLC; Defendant/respondent: Hill House Hammond Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Chancery Division (preliminary Issue) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Lease Construction, Landlord and Tenant Repairing Covenants, Interpretation of Contracts, Rectification by Construction
Property Law Contract Law Lease Construction Landlord and Tenant Repairing Covenants Interpretation of Contracts Rectification by Construction

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Holding & Barnes PLC

Claimant/appellant

Hill House Hammond Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Chancery Division (preliminary Issue) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct construction of the landlord's repairing covenant in clause 4.3 of the Barking lease?
  2. 2 Should the words in brackets in clause 4.3 be deleted as a clerical error?
  3. 3 Is rectification by construction appropriate in this context?

Ratio Decidendi

The words in brackets in clause 4.3 of the Barking lease were an obvious clerical error, and should be deleted by construction. The landlord's repairing obligation should be construed as extending to the foundations, roof, structure, and exterior of the property, as in the Ilford lease. This interpretation best reflects the parties' intention and the factual matrix of the transaction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that clause 4.3 of the Barking lease should be construed as if the words in brackets were deleted, matching the Ilford lease's repairing covenant.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the successful respondent, summarily assessed at £16,000 inclusive of VAT and solicitor's travelling costs.