The High Court has ruled on an appeal brought by a residential landlord, which concerned the question of who was responsible under the terms of the lease to maintain and repair glass panels that were in disrepair, and which needed replacing.
The appeal concerned a penthouse flat in one of three blocks in Fulham.
In the lease, the roof was included within the definition of the Main Structure and fell under the landlord's repairing covenant. Meanwhile the windows formed part of the leaseholders' demised premises and fell within the leaseholders' repairing covenant.
The penthouse flat was partly enclosed by a glass structure made up of 25 panels, fixed into the framework structure, of which 4 were conventional opening windows. The remaining 21 panels did not open and the single joint expert in the case, Mr Lovelock, described the glass panels in his report as: "an unusual, glazed enclosure formed in a rectangular structural bay projecting from the main living area of the flat."
The only safe means of accessing the exterior of the glass panels was via the erection of scaffolding outside the building. The glass panels could not be repaired in situ and could not be removed or cleaned from inside the property.
Following a trial in January 2025 the Judge had found in favour of the leaseholders that it was the landlord's responsibility to repair and maintain the glass panels as they formed part of the Main Structure because they were part of the roof, and the landlord was ordered to put the glass panels into repair and pay damages to the leaseholders. The landlord appealed this decision and the appeal was heard in March this year.
On appeal, Mr Justice Rajah upheld the County Court decision and agreed that the glass panels formed part of the roof of the building, and therefore the landlord was responsible for repairing and maintaining these glass panels in accordance with the terms of the lease.
Whilst he acknowledged it is ultimately a matter of construction with regard to any particular lease in question, terms like “window” and “roof” have their ordinary, everyday meaning and therefore do not require definition. Applying what he described as the elephant recognition principle ("it may be hard to describe an elephant, but you know one when you see one"), Mr Justice Rajah noted that it is usually fairly obvious what is a window in the ordinary usage of the term and what is not. If it is a glazed panel in a frame in an exterior wall which opens and closes, then it is likely to be a window. But if you have a conservatory with walls and roof made up entirely of fixed glass panels in a frame and which do not open, each such pane cannot be regarded as a window. The landlord's appeal was therefore unsuccessful.
The case is a useful illustration of the exercise of lease interpretation in circumstances where the precise architectural feature in question did not appear to have been specifically considered in the drafting of the lease.
Trowers & Hamlins LLP acted for the successful leaseholders in this case.
