In 2015, held that where a Beatsons Building Supplies v Alex F Noble building is let out, the tenant was liable to repair a culvert that was under the premises. Extraordinary repairs An event that is unanticipated and is likely outwith either party’s control to be an extraordinary repair, as are decay through passage of time and latent and inherent defects. Drafting points If the premises are part of a larger entity the lease should contain a of and that the tenant is stated to accept the premises “common parts”, and the common parts as being in good condition and fit for their purpose. Landlords should beware of circular repair clauses - maintain and “to repair, and for the purposes of maintenance and repair, to renew, replace and means that the tenant is only liable for renewing or rebuilding rebuild”, a constituent part of the premises, as opposed to the whole. A safer that is often given to the tenant is in the wording: repair and “to maintain, and if beyond economic or viable repair or maintenance, to renew, replace and rebuild”. In Thorn EMI Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Industrial Estates Ltd, Unreported held repair, rebuild, reinstate or replace the premises October 29, 1982, “to in the event of damage however the is sufficient to same shall arise”, on the tenant the obligation to make good latent and inherent defects. There is a difference between having to keep the premises in “good and having to keep them in In Quick v Taff--Ely “good condition”. Council, it was held that a property can be in good [1986] Q.B. 809 repair but in bad condition; it could be damp and suffer from condensation and thus suffer from being inefficient and having less than ideal amenity. This would not be something requiring repair of repairs clause Tenant’s revisals
In Beatsons Building Supplies v Alex F Noble 2015, held that where a building is let out, the tenant was liable to repair a culvert that was under the premises. Extraordinary repairs An event that is unanticipated and outwith either party’s control is likely to be an extraordinary repair, as are decay through passage of time and latent and inherent defects. Drafting points If the premises are part of a larger entity the lease should contain a of “common parts”, and that the tenant is stated to accept the premises and the common parts as being in good condition and fit for their purpose. Landlords should beware of circular repair clauses - “to maintain and repair, and for the purposes of maintenance and repair, to renew, replace and rebuild”, means that the tenant is only liable for renewing or rebuilding a constituent part of the premises, as opposed to the whole. A safer that is often given to the tenant is in the wording: “to repair and maintain, and if beyond economic or viable repair or maintenance, to renew, replace and rebuild”. In Thorn EMI Ltd v Taylor Woodrow Industrial Estates Ltd, Unreported October 29, 1982, held “to repair, rebuild, reinstate or replace the premises in the event of damage however the same shall arise”, is sufficient to on the tenant the obligation to make good latent and inherent defects. There is a difference between having to keep the premises in “good and having to keep them in “good condition”. In Quick v Taff--Ely Council, [1986] Q.B. 809 it was held that a property can be in good repair but in bad condition; it could be damp and suffer from condensation and thus suffer from being inefficient and having less than ideal amenity. This would not be something requiring repair Tenant’s revisals of repairs clause