Yeoman's Row Management Limited -v- Meyrick - on appeal to the High Court: 18th December 2001

Facts:

This case concerns a flat in a block of flats where the Defendant was the successor to a statutory tenancy, based on a contractual tenancy commenced in 1958. The landlord wanted to enter the Defendant's flat in order to carry out various works, including improvements. The lease provided that the tenant was to "permit the landlords … to execute any repairs or work to … the said flat … and for the purpose of executing any repairs or work to or in connection with any flats above or below or adjoining the said flat …".

The landlord suggested that this provision was a covenant on the part of the tenant to permit the landlord entry to the flat to carry out any bona fide work. The tenant argued that the said right of entry should be construed restrictively against the landlord since it, in effect, operated by way of reservation from the interest granted by the lease and, when read in the context of other provisions in the lease, the use of the word "work" merely meant works of repair or akin to works of repair that any tenant in question had failed to carry out or which were required. Accordingly, the proposed improvements did not fall into these categories and would constitute a breach for quiet enjoyment and, in the absence of a clear provision entitling a landlord to carry out such works, to require the tenant to permit the landlord access to carry out extensive proposed works would constitute a derogation from grant. The County Court Judge found in favour of the tenant.

The Decision:

The landlord appealed to the High Court but the appeal was dismissed. The tenant was not required to permit the landlord to enter to carry out certain of the proposed works. Following previous authority, if the meaning of certain words was not clear from the lease, the correct approach was to identify the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person with the background knowledge reasonably available to the parties. Having regard to the passage of time since the grant of the lease, and it being accepted that the words "repairs or work" should be limited to some extent, the nature of any such restriction should be identified from the lease. The court considered that it was clear from the terms of the lease that this right of entry provision only applied in the event of a failure to repair or where works of repair or works akin to repair needed to be carried out. Since the words "repairs or work" could be construed as being limited in this way, it would require clear words to extend the meaning of this provision beyond this. Such clear words being absent from the lease, the lease provision did not require the tenant to permit access to the landlord where the works proposed went beyond repair (in a broad sense).

Comment:

It could be said that the interpretation of the words "or work" was overly restrictive. That said, the premises were residential and the form of lease old. A more modern lease could expand usefully on the meaning of "or work" so that such was not limited to the context of repairs and could include, for example, improvements and/or a redevelopment of the building or adjoining buildings. Landlords should assume that a right reserved to the landlord to enter demised premises will be limited to the purposes stated in the lease, and which will be construed strictly.

This article was first published in Property Week. For further information please contact Andrew Walker at [email protected] or on 020 7367 2710