An influx of lease expiries is on the horizon as 25 year leases granted in the late 1980s followed by short term extensions (to delay relocations during the financial crisis) come to an end. There will consequently be a spike in terminal dilapidations claims. Landlords may attempt to use terminal dilapidations claims to recover the cost of improving their properties to current standards but will they succeed?

The recent High Court decision in Sunlife Europe Properties Limited v Tiger Aspect Holdings Limited and Tiger Television Limited [2013] EWHC 463 (TCC) summarised the legal principles surrounding dilapidations claims involving improvements. These principles, set out below, appear to make it difficult for landlords to recover the cost of improvements as part of a dilapidations claim:

  • A tenant is entitled to perform its covenants in the manner that is least onerous.
  • A tenant is obliged to return the premises in good and tenantable condition with any M&E systems in satisfactory working order. It is not required to deliver up the premises with new equipment or with equipment that has any particular remaining life expectancy. The standard of repair is to be judged by reference to the condition of the equipment and fittings at the start of the lease not the condition which would be expected of an equivalent building at the expiry of the lease. However, if more extensive work is carried out than would have been necessary to simply remedy the tenant's breach, the landlord should be able to recover the element of the costs required to remedy the breach.
  • Where there are covenants against alterations, the tenant is not entitled, let alone obliged, to deliver up the premises in a condition that involved material alteration.
  • Where market conditions at the expiry of a lease dictate that a property requires upgrading or refurbishment in order to attract appropriate tenants, an outgoing tenant in breach of a repairing covenant cannot be held liable for the costs of remedying the breach if that work would be rendered unnecessary in view of the upgrading or refurbishment of the premises i.e. supersession.

Nevertheless, Sunlife did provide landlords with some hope of recovering the cost of improvements. Tenants are only required to replace items in disrepair on a like for like or nearest-equivalent basis, rather than upgrade them to bring them in line with current standards, but this may not be the case if the improvement is necessary to comply with necessary regulations or legislation. The Energy Act 2011 will make letting buildings with an energy efficiency rating below a certain level unlawful after April 2018 (if not earlier) and EU Regulation 2037/200 provides that air conditioning and heat pumping systems cannot legally be serviced or repaired with R22 refrigerant after 1 January 2015 meaning it will become impossible to maintain such systems beyond the short term. It remains to be seen whether the Courts will infer a breach of covenant for failure to comply with such legislation and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be.

In Sunlife it was ultimately accepted that if the tenant had complied with its repairing covenant, the premises could have been re-let to an appropriate tenant in 2009 (albeit at a discount). Existing case law suggests that where premises could not be re-let, even if a tenant had complied with its repairing covenant, the principle of supersession applies and the cost of the requisite improvement works would fall entirely on the landlord.

It will be interesting to see how the Courts reconcile the principle of supersession with the proliferation of environmental legislation that will be imposed on buildings going forward. As damages for failing to comply with statute would not be limited by the statutory cap imposed by Section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, but assessed under common law principles, the approach of the Courts in such cases will be of great significance to dilapidations claims.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.