In a recent High Court case, a judge had to decide between two conflicting lease covenants (repair and quiet enjoyment) and the best way forward to resolve the underlying issues in a building.
MSA was the freeholder of the building and the defendant (The Drapery Northampton) held a 999 year lease of the upper residential floors. In August 2022 a loading base ceiling had collapsed revealing seven rotten structural joists supporting the first floor. MSA sought access to replace the joists from above. However this would require a number of flats to be vacated causing a loss of income to the Defendant. The Defendant argued that the work could be undertaken from below and that therefore the landlord’s approach was unreasonable
At issue in case were the competing landlord’s covenants in the lease – firstly to repair the structure of the building; and secondly, to give quiet enjoyment so that the Defendant’s tenants could continue to occupy their flats.
The law in this situation is straightforward – where a lease contains both a repairing covenant and a quiet enjoyment covenant on the part of the landlord, neither trumps the other but the landlord must act reasonably.
In this case, and after looking at the detailed evidence, the court held that the landlord’s approach was reasonable even though it meant that the Defendant’s tenants had to vacate their flats for a period of six weeks.
The landlord acting reasonably was the key to its ultimate success in this case.
MSA Properties Limited v The Drapery Northampton Ltd [2026] EWHC 1420
