Riverside Property Investments Ltd. v Blackhawk Automotive

Riverside Property Investments Ltd. v Blackhawk Automotive

The court found that the roof could be and was put into the required condition by repair rather than replacement; the works carried out by Blackhawk were sufficient to comply with the repairing covenant. Riverside's claim for the cost of replacement and associated fees failed as there was no breach of covenant. Most of the claimed costs were not recoverable under the lease, and any recoverable sums had already been paid.

Parties
Claimant: Riverside Property Investments Ltd; Defendant: Blackhawk Automotive
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil (landlord and Tenant/dilapidations) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendant.
Legal Topics
Repairing Covenants, Dilapidations, Lease Interpretation, Damages for Breach of Covenant, Costs Under Lease
Landlord and Tenant Property Law Contract Law Repairing Covenants Dilapidations Lease Interpretation Damages for Breach of Covenant Costs Under Lease

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riverside Property Investments Ltd

Claimant

Blackhawk Automotive

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (landlord and Tenant/dilapidations) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant (Blackhawk) breached repairing covenants by failing to replace the roof or by carrying out repairs instead of replacement
  2. 2 Whether the remedial works carried out by Blackhawk were sufficient to put the roof into the covenanted condition
  3. 3 Whether Riverside is entitled to recover the costs of replacement and associated professional fees under the lease

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the roof could be and was put into the required condition by repair rather than replacement; the works carried out by Blackhawk were sufficient to comply with the repairing covenant. Riverside's claim for the cost of replacement and associated fees failed as there was no breach of covenant. Most of the claimed costs were not recoverable under the lease, and any recoverable sums had already been paid.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for the defendant.

Orders

  • Riverside's claim for the cost of roof replacement and associated fees is dismissed.
  • No further sums are due from Blackhawk to Riverside in respect of the schedule of costs.