Cases - Riverside Property Investments Ltd v Blackhawk Automotive
Record details
- Name
- Riverside Property Investments Ltd v Blackhawk Automotive
- Date
- [2004]; [2005]
- Citation
- EWHC 302; 1 EG 94 (CS)
- Legislation
- Keywords
- Commercial property - property management - dilapidations - roofs - asbestos
- Summary
-
Roofs (including asbestos roofing sheets) - often the covenantor has the freedom to choose between two appropriate solutions: repair or replacement. The case concerned asbestos cement roof sheets and the method of attaching them.
In this case the court held that the roof of the property (which comprised asbestos cement roof sheets) could be put into the covenanted condition by the carrying out of works that did not involve the complete replacement of the existing roof. All of the reports and advice obtained by both parties in the case recognised that repair, rather than replacement, was a perfectly viable option. In cases involving a dispute between replacement and repair, replacement would be required only if repair were not reasonably or sensibly possible. If the covenant could properly be performed in one of two ways, the tenant was entitled to choose which method to use and could not be criticised for choosing the least expensive option, and the decision of Ultraworth Ltd v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation was applied.
On the evidence in Riverside, the repairs carried out by the defendant had been sufficient to comply with the covenant.
There was no evidence to suggest that the manner of carrying out the repairs was in breach of covenant. The decision to use topfix fasteners could not be criticised, and their installation by specialist roofing contractors also did not constitute a breach of covenant.
The continued presence of asbestos in the original roof sheets that had not been replaced could not be a reason to contend that the defendant had breached its repairing obligation. In this case, HHJ Coulson QC affirmed the position that a claimant could recover damages for their managerial and supervisory expenses provided that such expenses were directly attributable to the defendant's default. However, in the circumstances, as in Tate & Lyle, the claim failed because the plaintiffs had kept no records of the time expended and the claim could not therefore be quantified.