Covenant for quiet enjoyment: not a covenant to improve

The covenant for quiet enjoyment can only be broken by an action (or omission) that occurred after the date of the lease. It does not impose an obligation to improve the property.

In Southwark LBC v Mills ([2001] Ch. 1, CA (Eng)) there was inadequate sound insulation between the flats in a block of flats. The tenants could hear every noise made by their neighbours. They claimed that this was a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The English Court of Appeal rejected this. The covenant refers to some act or omission after the date of the lease (per Mantell L.J.). It is not a covenant to carry out improvement works (per Schiemann L.J. at 21).

This decision was confirmed by the House of Lords sub nom. Southwark LBC v Tanner

2 Responses to “Covenant for quiet enjoyment: not a covenant to improve”

  1. Luke Says:

    Hi

    Thanks for maintaining this excellent, highly informative blog.

    Any chance of reporting on HCAL 33/2011 about the review of a removal order against UBWs?

    Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: