Yeoman's Row Management Ltd v Bodentien-Meyrick

A landlord’s contractual right to enter a demised flat to carry out “repairs or work” must be construed with the tenant’s covenant for quiet enjoyment and the agreement as a whole. General wording will not, without clear language, authorise the landlord to carry out improvements to the flat or require the tenant to surrender occupation while they are performed.

“Work” may extend beyond repair, but is confined to work akin to repair, including work needed to maintain the building’s integrity or meet legal requirements. A provision excluding objections to alterations to the building does not remove the tenant’s right to object to structural or other alterations to the demised flat itself.

The respondent was the statutory successor tenant of a flat under a 1958 monthly tenancy agreement. The agreement required the tenant to permit the landlords to enter and execute “any repairs or work” to the inside or outside of the flat, while also containing a covenant for quiet enjoyment.

The landlords gave notice of 16 proposed items of work and sought possession of the flat, with temporary alternative accommodation for the tenant, while the works were undertaken. They contended that the entry clause authorised improvements as well as repairs.

His Honour Judge Peter Cowell rejected that construction. Pumfrey J upheld his decision. The landlords appealed on the proper construction of the tenancy agreement.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. Longmore LJ gave the leading judgment, with which Jonathan Parker LJ and Peter Gibson LJ agreed. The county court judge and Pumfrey J had correctly construed the agreement.

2. Clause 2(20), requiring the tenant to permit entry to execute “any repairs or work”, had to be read with the covenant for quiet enjoyment in clause 3(1). A construction permitting improvements to the demised flat, and potentially requiring the tenant to leave for an unrestricted period, would substantially invade that enjoyment.

3. The agreement did not clearly provide that the landlords could undertake any improvements they chose. Clearer language was required if the landlords were to be entitled to deprive the tenant of quiet enjoyment to that extent. A landlord’s bona fide belief that proposed works would benefit the flat or building was an insufficient restriction on such a broad power.

4. The word “work” was not confined strictly to physical repair. It could include work akin to repair, such as work necessary to maintain the integrity of the building or work required by law. It did not extend to improvements that were not akin to repair and were not otherwise required.

5. The proviso preventing objection to disturbance from structural or other alterations to the building reinforced that conclusion. It concerned the building of which the flat formed part, not alterations to the demised flat itself. The tenant could therefore object to structural or other alterations to the flat.

6. The appeal was dismissed with costs summarily assessed at £3,500, payable within 14 days.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the landlords’ appeal in [2002] EWCA Civ 860.

• Pumfrey J: upheld His Honour Judge Peter Cowell’s construction of the tenancy agreement.

• West London County Court: His Honour Judge Peter Cowell held that the entry provision did not authorise improvements unconnected with repair.