Emiliana is registered proprietor of a large building (‘the building’) comprising a number of
self-contained flats. She lives in the flat on the ground floor.
Two years ago, Emilina granted Fina a five-year lease of the top-floor flat (by deed). The
lease contains an express covenant by the tenant ‘to keep in repair the flat and all its
installations, including the boiler.’ The lease does not contain any landlord covenants. Before
the lease was granted, Fina explained to Emilina that she was an amateur astronomer and that
the principal reason she wanted the flat was because it offered a panoramic view of the night
sky through its skylights.
Three months ago, construction work was completed on a new flat on the roof of the building,
directly above Fina’s flat. The new flat obscures Fina’s view of the sky.
Two months ago, Emilina let the new flat to tenants. As the new flat is inadequately sound
insulated, Fina can hear every noise made by its tenants.
Last month, the boiler in Fina’s flat stopped working. Fina complained to Emilina about the
boiler, the noise, and the interference with her view. Emilina refused to deal with these issues.
She shouted at Fina: ‘You’re responsible for the boiler. If you are so unhappy here, you
should just leave.’ On every occasion Emilina has seen Fina in the building since Fina
complained, Emiliana has shouted the following words at her: ‘You better leave if you know
what is good for you.’
Advise the parties:
i Who is responsible for the broken boiler; and
ii Whether Emiliana has breached any implied landlord covenants.
Whether there is anything to displace the covenant generally?
Per s.13 LTA 1985 – the act applies to leases, which enables the and lord to terminate the
lease before 7 years have expired. Here, the lease is for 5 years so the Act is applicable to the
lease in question. Furthermore, the Act applies to leases granted after the 21/10/1961. The
facts suggest that the lease was granted two years ago, so this aspect is satisfied. Moreover,
the act applies to residential leases. The facts suggest that the lease is residential because Fina
is going to reside therein.
Per s. 11(4) LTA 1985, the Act has priority over any terms of the lease and the terms of the
lease will have no effect if they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
Whether the boiler is within the scope of the land lords implied repairing obligations?
Per s. 11(1)(c) LTA 1985 – items must be kept in proper working order. A boiler which does
not work is not doing what it is meant to do i.e. heat water. Thus, the obligation to keep the
boiler in proper working order is triggered. This means that Emiliana is responsible for the
broken boiler.
Whether Emiliana has breached any implied Land-Lord covenants?
self-contained flats. She lives in the flat on the ground floor.
Two years ago, Emilina granted Fina a five-year lease of the top-floor flat (by deed). The
lease contains an express covenant by the tenant ‘to keep in repair the flat and all its
installations, including the boiler.’ The lease does not contain any landlord covenants. Before
the lease was granted, Fina explained to Emilina that she was an amateur astronomer and that
the principal reason she wanted the flat was because it offered a panoramic view of the night
sky through its skylights.
Three months ago, construction work was completed on a new flat on the roof of the building,
directly above Fina’s flat. The new flat obscures Fina’s view of the sky.
Two months ago, Emilina let the new flat to tenants. As the new flat is inadequately sound
insulated, Fina can hear every noise made by its tenants.
Last month, the boiler in Fina’s flat stopped working. Fina complained to Emilina about the
boiler, the noise, and the interference with her view. Emilina refused to deal with these issues.
She shouted at Fina: ‘You’re responsible for the boiler. If you are so unhappy here, you
should just leave.’ On every occasion Emilina has seen Fina in the building since Fina
complained, Emiliana has shouted the following words at her: ‘You better leave if you know
what is good for you.’
Advise the parties:
i Who is responsible for the broken boiler; and
ii Whether Emiliana has breached any implied landlord covenants.
Whether there is anything to displace the covenant generally?
Per s.13 LTA 1985 – the act applies to leases, which enables the and lord to terminate the
lease before 7 years have expired. Here, the lease is for 5 years so the Act is applicable to the
lease in question. Furthermore, the Act applies to leases granted after the 21/10/1961. The
facts suggest that the lease was granted two years ago, so this aspect is satisfied. Moreover,
the act applies to residential leases. The facts suggest that the lease is residential because Fina
is going to reside therein.
Per s. 11(4) LTA 1985, the Act has priority over any terms of the lease and the terms of the
lease will have no effect if they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
Whether the boiler is within the scope of the land lords implied repairing obligations?
Per s. 11(1)(c) LTA 1985 – items must be kept in proper working order. A boiler which does
not work is not doing what it is meant to do i.e. heat water. Thus, the obligation to keep the
boiler in proper working order is triggered. This means that Emiliana is responsible for the
broken boiler.
Whether Emiliana has breached any implied Land-Lord covenants?
