13.07.2015 Views

Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

Consultation Paper on the General Law of the Landlord and Tenant

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

against “unreas<strong>on</strong>able withholding” <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sent to alienati<strong>on</strong>. 40 TheCommissi<strong>on</strong> thinks that any doubt <strong>on</strong> this subject should be resolved.The Commissi<strong>on</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>ally recommends that it should be madeclear by statute that it is permissible for a l<strong>and</strong>lord to make it ac<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sent to an assignment that ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> tenant or <strong>the</strong>assignee complies with repairing obligati<strong>on</strong>s within a reas<strong>on</strong>ablespecified time.10.15 So far as <strong>the</strong> tenant is c<strong>on</strong>cerned, again a range <strong>of</strong> remediesis available, including seeking specific performance, 41 to enforce <strong>the</strong>l<strong>and</strong>lord’s obligati<strong>on</strong>s. The tenant may also seek damages but itwould appear that it is not possible to claim <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> diminuti<strong>on</strong>in <strong>the</strong> value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> tenancy if, as will <strong>of</strong>ten be desired, <strong>the</strong> tenantremains in occupati<strong>on</strong> despite <strong>the</strong> failure by <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord to carry outrepairs. 42 It has been suggested in Irel<strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> tenant in such casesmay, never<strong>the</strong>less, recover damages for “physical inc<strong>on</strong>venience <strong>and</strong>discomfort”. 43 This appears to be somewhat at variance with <strong>the</strong>general principle <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> law <strong>of</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tract that damages for breach <strong>of</strong>c<strong>on</strong>tract cannot include an element for annoyance, vexati<strong>on</strong> ordisappointment. 44 The Commissi<strong>on</strong> thinks that this point should beclarified in favour <strong>of</strong> tenants. The Commissi<strong>on</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>allyrecommends that, if a tenant c<strong>on</strong>tinues in possessi<strong>on</strong> despite <strong>the</strong>l<strong>and</strong>lord’s failure to perform obligati<strong>on</strong>s like a repairing <strong>on</strong>e, <strong>the</strong>tenant should have a statutory right to claim damages for physicalinc<strong>on</strong>venience <strong>and</strong> discomfort.10.16 One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> issues which is raised from time to time is that atenant does not have, particularly in a commercial c<strong>on</strong>text, a veryeffective <strong>and</strong> practical remedy, <strong>the</strong> exercise or threat <strong>of</strong> exercise <strong>of</strong>which is likely to induce <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>lord to carry out repairing <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>robligati<strong>on</strong>s. The l<strong>and</strong>lord can always threaten <strong>the</strong> tenant with a4041424344The English authorities suggest that a l<strong>and</strong>lord should be cautious infollowing this practice: Orl<strong>and</strong>o Investments Ltd v Grosvenor EstateBelgravia [1989] 2 EGLR 74; Straudley Investments Ltd v Mount EdenL<strong>and</strong> Ltd [1997] EGCS 175. Cf Farr v Ginnings (1928) 44 ILTR 249.See Wylie op cit paragraph 15.19.Wallace v Manchester City Council [1998] 3 EGLR 38.Siney v Dublin Corporati<strong>on</strong> [1980] IR 400, 415 (per O’Higgins CJ).See McDermott C<strong>on</strong>tract <strong>Law</strong> (Butterworths 2001) at 1151. Cf aggravateddamages in tort: see Whelan v Madigan [1978] ILRM 136.136

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!