the boyes turner client experience
relationship statement
central services & support staff
benefits and training
how to apply for a training contract
training contract faqs
trainee benefits and training
vacation placement scheme
preferences and subscriptions
Home > News > Conflict between Landlord's right to carry out works and Tenant's right of quiet enjoyment
Katie Rampton,
ASSOCIATE - SOLICITOR
Conflict between Landlord's right to carry out works and Tenant's right of quiet enjoyment
In the recent case of Timothy Taylor Ltd v Mayfair House Corporation and Another, the High Court considered the relationship between an express right for a landlord to carry out works and a tenant's right of quiet enjoyment reserved in a commercial lease. This case provides useful guidance to landlords who intend to carry out works to a property which may impact on their tenant's use and enjoyment of the same.
All leases contain an obligation on the landlord to give its tenant quiet enjoyment of the demised premises, meaning that there should be no interference with the tenant's possession and enjoyment of the property. This covenant is normally expressly stated in a lease but if not the court will imply this obligation. The covenant overlaps with the landlord's implied obligation not to derogate from its grant; it cannot give with one hand and take away with the other. These implied obligations are usually relied upon by tenants to prevent a landlord from doing something that would stop them enjoying the property.
In Timothy Taylor Ltd, the tenant operated an art gallery from the ground and basement floors of a five storey building in Mayfair, London. The lease was for a term of 20 years from January 2007 at a rate of £550,000 per annum. It contained an express right for the landlord to alter or re-build the building, even if such works materially affected the use and enjoyment of the premises. In addition, the landlord was given the right to erect scaffolding temporarily as long as this did not materially adversely restrict access to, or impact on the use and enjoyment of, the premises. Conversely, the lease also contained a quiet enjoyment covenant permitting the tenant to peacefully hold and enjoy the premises without any interruption or disturbance from or by the landlord.
In 2013 the landlord started extensive works to rebuild the interior of the premises from the first floor up to create new residential apartments. The tenant accepted that the landlord was entitled to carry out these works but claimed that the manner in which the works were being carried out was unreasonable. It claimed that its use and enjoyment of the premises was being interfered with due to the high levels of noise being generated by the works on a daily basis which had impacted on the gallery's business, resulting in staff suffering absences and on occasions the gallery having to be closed. The landlord had informed the tenant that scaffolding would have towers at ground floor level so that the gallery could still be seen to be operating and accessible. However, in reality the scaffolding erected for the works enwrapped the whole building meaning that the gallery was almost invisible. It appeared to passers-by that it had been closed down. The tenant argued that the landlord had not taken reasonable steps to minimise disturbance and was therefore in breach of its quiet enjoyment covenant. It sought damages for breaches of its rights and an injunction in respect of any future works.
It was held that the landlord was entitled to carry out the works in question provided that it had taken all reasonable steps to minimise disturbance to the tenant. On considering what reasonable steps should be carried out, the court said that the following factors should be taken into account:-
Whether the tenant had notice of the intended works at the commencement of the lease. In this case the tenant was only aware of a general intention on the part of the landlord and had not been told about any specific works or that they would be as extensive as they in fact were.
Any offer of financial compensation to the tenant for disturbance caused by the works. In this instance, the landlord had dismissed outright any suggestion of compensation, or even a meeting to discuss the same.
Whether the works were being carried out for the benefit of the tenants in the building or for the landlord's personal benefit. Here, the works were entirely for the landlord's own purposes and would have no benefit to the tenants.
It was therefore held that the landlord had acted unreasonably in the exercise of its right to carry out the repairs and was in breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant and was also in derogation from grant. The court noted that the premises was being let as a high class gallery at a substantial rent and therefore the landlord should have considered the tenant's needs to keep the gallery running with as little disturbance as possible. A point blank refusal to offer any form of discount to the high rent despite the works meant that an increased level of reasonableness was required. In addition, it was noted that the way in which the scaffolding had been designed and erected paid no regards to the interests of the tenant and was entirely unreasonable. There was no liaison with the tenant as to the likely duration of the works, the noise levels to be expected or how the impact of works could be mitigated.
As such, the tenant was entitled to damages for the landlord's breach of its quiet enjoyment covenant and for derogation from grant. The tenant had not suffered any loss of profit so the court assessed the damages at 20% of the rent payable under the lease from the date the scaffolding was erected to the date of Judgment. It was deemed impractical to grant an injunction for the future works but instead the court awarded damages in lieu for future breaches, again assessed at the rate of 20% of the rent up until the date of completion of the works.
This case shows that an express right for a landlord to carry out works does not mean that it can then do what it wants. It should still have regard to the tenant's quiet enjoyment rights and should take all reasonable precautions to minimise disturbance caused. The standard of reasonableness may be more stringent when the works are carried out for the landlord's own benefit rather than that of its tenants. When planning to carry out substantial works a landlord should ensure that the tenant is given as much information as possible about the works, including their likely duration and the disruption that will be caused. It is good practice for the landlord to meet with the tenant before the tender stage to discuss how disturbance could be minimised so that any specific requirements can be passed on to their contractor and professional team. In addition, landlords should ensure that scaffolding is designed to minimise impact on the appearance of the tenant's premises and access to them.
For more information about the issues raised in this article or to find out about how the Property Dispute team can help you please contact Katie Rampton on 0118 952 7226 or email [email protected].
Consistent with our policy when giving comment and advice on a non-specific basis, we cannot assume legal responsibility for the accuracy of any particular statement. In the case of specific problems we recommend that professional advice be sought.
News, publications and media search
Media type News Video Expertise Additional property services Advanced manufacturing Agency, distribution & franchising Agent disputes Banking & finance Banking and finance - pension scheme lending Birth injury claims Boyes Turner HR Consulting Brand Guardianship Business immigration Business support and insolvency Cerebral palsy claims Claims Commercial Commercial property Construction Construction disputes Contracts and policies Conveyancing Conveyancing fees Corporate Corporate, shareholder and partnership disputes Courses for board level Courses for HR/in-house legal Courses for managers Court of Protection Data protection Debt recovery Defamation and reputation management Development and house building Digital businesses Dispute resolution Education Elderly client services Employment Employment and HR training feedback Employment disputes for employees Employment mediation Employment tribunal - our costs FinTech Growth businesses Housing How can you prepare for Brexit? HR Training Academy Industrial disease claims Insurance disputes Intellectual Property International Inward investment IT disputes Lawrope Leisure and hospitality Life sciences Media, advertising & publishing Mediation Medical negligence claims Pension scheme lending Personal injury claims Planning Plot sales and new homes Powers of Attorney (LPA) Probate Probate disputes Probate fees Professional negligence Property Property - development Property - portfolio managment Property development information login Property disputes Property finance Property finance Recent work - Dispute resolution Services for developers Soft skills courses Technology & innovation Terms and Conditions Transatlantic Law International Transport & logistics Trusts Wealth protection Webinars & e-learning Wills Person Allison, Rachael Anderson, Martin Annalls, Chelsea Appleton, Mark Bailey, Nick Bailey, Beth Baker, Stephen Barnett, Helen Baxter, Rachel Bell, Matt Blunden, Mark Branson, Chris Brenchley, Rachael Brown, Rachel Brown, Stephanie Brown, Susan Byrne, Tara Carter, Nick Catchpole, Elise Chalkley, Andrew Ching, Derek Clough, Jessica Cranmer, Julia Daniel, Bob Dobson, Chris Dodds, Carly Duncan, Rachel Eavis, Kate Farrier, Michael Fernandez, Chloe Fitzpatrick, Oliver Ford, Laura Franks, Rob Garside, Jemma Gibson, Jemille Goddard, Donna Gorman, Charlotte Gornall-King, Bill Goss, Helen Green, Thomas Green, Laura Grewal, Anisha Griffiths, Adrian Grigg, Jonathan Harbutt, Melloney Hobbs, Maria Hook, Emily Hudson, Grace Hughes, Charlene Hutson, Angela Jacques, Philip Kousari, Amir Lowery, Paul Magson, Laura Makore, Rachel Manganaro , Megan Marsh, Julie Martin, Sophie May, Russell McDonnell, Sophie Meyer, Ruth Mockevicute, Elina Money-Kyrle, Richard Murray, Natalie Nassau-Lake, William Neilson, Annabelle Nicholson, Rebecca O'Connor, Emma O'Leary, Mary Olszewski, Peter Pardoe, Kerry Parfitt, Calum Parsons, Chris Patel, Laxmi Payne, Sophie Pearson, Anne Peck, Lizzie Perry, Stella Pheby, Cleo Pimenta, Tom Rahman, Shehnaz Rampton, Katie Rana, Alpa Rankin, Janey Rason, Claire Roantree, Claire Roff, Natalie Rothwell, Fran Shriane, Georgia Silas-Richards, Nadine Smerdon, Kim Smith, Phil Smith, Darren Soni, Sita Sowerby , Alasdair Stanborough, Nicky Stanton, Barry Starr, John Stewart, Victoria Taylor-Evans, Claire Tow, Ally Turrall, Rowan Wand, Vanessa Watson, Selina Webb, Sarah Wheeldon, Emma Whiteaker, Andrew Willoughby, Emma Woods, Jamie Wright, Alexander
award winning law firm
Boyes Turner are proud to have received the following awards and recognition.
did you know...?
Boyes Turner has been voted Regional Law Firm of the Year three times since 2010 read more
Over 90% of our partners are rated as leading individuals/experts. read more
In our last client survey, 81% said that the most recent service was to the same standard as previously. 19% said that the quality of the service provided had improved. read more
© 2019 Boyes Turner LLP
Boyes Turner Abbots House Abbey Street Reading RG1 3BD United Kingdom