Fitzroy House Epworth Street (No 1) Ltd & Anor v The Financial Times Ltd

This action is concerned with the lease of commercial premises known as Castle House, 37 – 45 (odd) Paul Street, London, EC2 (“Castle House”). The claimants (Fitzroy) are the joint legal owners of this property. They jointly hold the property for the benefit of Lionsgate Properties LP (“LP”), a limited liability partnership incorporated in Delaware, USA. LP acts through its General Partner, Lionsgate GP LLC (“GP”) and this action was started by REIT (Corporate Directors) Ltd, a director of each of the Fitzroy companies on the instructions of GP that were given on LP’s behalf. The property forms part of the Lionsgate portfolio of properties that was acquired by LP as part of its overall business of investment.

The property is a 3-storey office block forming one half of a pair of joined office blocks, being Castle House and Fitzroy House, which are located on the northern fringe of the City of London, south-east of the Old Street roundabout. It was leased by Fitzroy’s predecessors in title, United Newspapers Publications Ltd as lessor, to the defendant (“Financial Times”), as lessee, by a 16-year lease that commenced on 1April 1994 and expired on 10 April 2010. Fitzroy both acquired the freehold and an assignment of the lessor’s interest under this lease on 8 August 2002.

The action is concerned with the break clause contained in the lease. This clause allowed the Financial Times, as tenant, to terminate the lease on notice if that termination notice was served at least 13 months prior to the break date of 1 April 2004 so long as the tenant had materially complied with all its obligations in the lease down to 1 April 2004. The Financial Times served a termination notice on 5 February 2003 seeking to break the lease on 1 April 2004, thereafter undertook substantial works of renovation and repair in an attempt to ensure that it had fully complied with the repairing covenants in the lease and then purported to terminate by vacating the premises on the termination date. Fitzroy immediately contended that the Financial Times was and remained in breach in that the premises remained in disrepair and contended and still contends that the lease was not broken and remains in being. These proceedings require the court to determine whether or not the Financial Times had materially complied with its repairing obligations and whether, in consequence it did or did not successfully terminate the lease. Fitzroy, in addition to claiming that the lease was not terminated, claims unpaid rent and other outgoings for the period since 1 April 2004.

A substantial sum turns on this dispute. This is because the unexpired term from 1 April 2004 was 6 years, 10 days if it is held that the Financial Times failed to terminate the lease with effect from that date and the rent passing at that time was £595,000 per annum with a rent review with a possible upwards increase from that date. Indeed, Fitzroy has served notice of an intended rent review if the lease is held still to be subsisting. The premises have remained empty since 1 April 2004 and no rent or outgoings have been offered or collected since then. Furthermore, neither party has sought a new tenant to take either a new lease or an assignment or sub-tenancy of the current lease. Moreover, the commercial lettings market was, in 2004, and remains sluggish so that it might take some time to find a new tenant once a new lease, or the existing lease, is marketed following this judgment. It is also likely that any new tenant, once found, would be able to negotiate a substantial initial rent-free period.

It follows that whoever succeeds on the issue relating to the termination of the lease will either recover, or be saved from paying, a very substantial sum. In the proceedings, Fitzroy is claiming unpaid rent and other outgoings to date and the Financial Times is counterclaiming a declaration that the lease was successfully terminated with effect from 1 April 2004 and a small sum which, if the lease was terminated, amounts to an overpayment of an insurance premium for the period after that date. If the lease is held to be subsisting, the Financial Times will remain liable for rent and other outgoings for the whole period up to 10 April 2010.

Castle House makes up half of the joined pair of two U-shaped office blocks which are linked together to form a hollow rectangular shaped building. The building comprises about 31,050 square feet and is arranged on the ground to second floors on the corner of Epworth, Paul and Clere Streets, London, EC2. Fitzroy House is also U-shaped. The internal hollow of the block has a courtyard at ground floor level which is used as a car park that is shared by both blocks. Vehicular access to the courtyard is obtained via two passages running from the two roads abutting the two longer sides of the rectangle and these passages create the divide between the two blocks at ground floor level.

The building was both intended for use and constructed in the 1960s as a warehouse and was, in 2004, about 35 years old. The first planning consent that was granted, in 1968, was for warehouse use. However, that use never materialised and permission from the local Planning Authority for a change of use was obtained in 1970 to allow the building to be used for the preparation, compilation, printing and distribution of statistical and financial information with ancillary offices and storage. In about 1989, the building was substantially remodelled and refurbished by, amongst other features, the installation of air conditioning, so as to convert the building into full office user. Much of the plant dates back to this refurbishment. A further change of use permission was then obtained in 1994 to allow the building to be used as general offices within the uses permitted by Class B1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987, albeit that office use was already permitted by the change of use permission obtained in 1970. This was followed by the lease which was dated 31 August 1994 and which took effect from 1 April 1994. Under that lease, Castle House has been used by the Financial Times as offices.

The building is located in a secondary or fringe area of the City of London, albeit within the London Borough of Islington where this borders the City of London. The offices are not usually equipped or finished to the same high standard as is normal for that market and office premises can be expected, on occasion, to revert to a combination of uses such as offices, studio, warehouse, manufacturing or quasi-industrial use. The commercial office rental levels in this area are often significantly lower than would be usual for the general City market. An obvious tenant for this building would have been in 1994, and still remains, an investment bank with prime City office accommodation who wanted cheaper back up offices located reasonably close to its main offices in the City.

The lease is in standard form and contains no unusual covenants. The clause giving rise to the present dispute was, however, relatively unusual and there did not appear to be any direct authority available which provided clear guidance as to the meaning and effect of its principal provision.

The termination clause provided that:

…

The relevant obligations all related to the Financial Times’ repairing and redecorating obligations. These were:

put and keep the Property in repair …

replace all The Landlord’s fixtures and fittings in the Property which become beyond repair during the Term with those of no lesser quality;

keep all windows and other glass in the Property (both inside and outside) clean, cleaning them once a month and more frequently where necessary;

keep any open area within the Property adequately surfaced (where appropriate) and in good condition; …

permit the Landlord to examine its conditions and take an inventory;

permit the Landlord to enter the Property to exercise any of the rights reserved to the Landlord reserved by this Lease …

…

furnish all information relevant for those purposes as the Landlord or anyone having a right of entry under this sub-clause may reasonably request. …

Alterations

at the End of the Term, if required to do so by the Landlord but not otherwise, remove any alteration or addition including without limitation demountable partitioning (including any made before the beginning of the Term) and make good any damage caused by the removal. …”

Repairs. A substantial body of case law was cited in submissions by Mr Warwick and Mr Morgan QC in order to establish what amounted to disrepair and as to the ambit and effect of the repairing covenant governing the Financial Times’ obligations to put and keep in repair. I do not intend any disrespect to these submissions in summarising the relevant and applicable principles without undertaking a detailed exegesis since the law, although not always easy to apply, is now well established.

My summary is based, in particular, on Harris v Jones (1832) 1 Moo & R 173; Stanley v Towgood (1836) 3 Bing N.C. 4, Scales v Lawrence (1860) 2 F & F 289, Proudfoot v Hart (1890) 25 QBD 42, Perry v Chotzner (1893) 9 TLR 477, Calthorpe v McOscar [1924] 1 KB 719 and Riverside Property Investments Ltd v Blackhawk Automotive [2005] 1 EGLR 114.Reference was also made to the modern practitioners’ comprehensive reference work on this subject: Dowding & Reynolds, Dilapidations, The Modern Law and Practice, 3^rd edition, particularly at paragraph 9.03.

In summary:

“Repair” means making good damage and the renewal of subsidiary parts.

Not every defect, however minor, has to be put and kept in repair. The obligation is to put and keep in substantial repair. Minor defects are not included in the obligation to put and keep in substantial repair.

The standard of repair is that to be expected of the reasonably minded tenant on coming into the lease. The critical date for ascertaing and setting that standard is the date of the lease in question, in this case 1994.

Regard must be had to the age, type, location and established use of the building at that date in defining the relevant standard of repair.

Where there is a range of repair methods, the choice of the appropriate method is to be left to the obligor undertaking the repair, in this case the tenant.

The obligation is a continuing obligation and comprises both the obligation to undertake the work and to achieve an acceptable outcome.

Material compliance. I was referred to a recent decision of Judge Rich QC sitting as a judge of the Queen’s Bench Division in Commercial Union Life Assurance Co Ltd v Label Ink Ltd [2001] L & TR 29. In that case, the relevant provision allowed the tenant to exercise an option to determine the lease which was subject to a condition that: “there shall not be any material breach of the covenants [by the tenant]” contained in the lease. This condition is, I am satisfied, the mirror image of the condition in this case that provides that the tenant: “has materially complied with all its obligations” contained in the lease. It is, therefore, comparable to this condition and Judge Rich’s views, particularly given his very considerable experience in this area of the law, are entitled to considerable respect.

Judge Rich summarised the correct approach to the application and meaning of the condition requiring “material compliance” or no “material breach” in an option or break clause as follows:

Fitzroy urged me not to follow this decision, despite its relevance and authority. It contended that the clause in this case appeared in a lease that had been entered into soon after the decision of the Court of Appeal in Bairstow Eves (Securities) Ltd v Ripley [1992] 2 EGLR 47 and the requirement of “material compliance” was clearly added into the lease as a response to that case. Bairstow Eves had decided that if an option clause allowing the tenant to renew the lease was coupled with a condition requiring performance and observation of the tenant’s covenants, the option could only be invoked if there had been strict compliance. Fitzroy sought to contend that, given that background, the condition in this lease was only intended to provide a modest inroad into that absolute requirement so that only trivial breaches of covenant would allow the modification that the breaches must be material to be given effect to.

I cannot accept this reasoning. It is clear that the draftsman of this condition had the Bairstow Eves case in mind since it had been decided so recently prior to the drafting of this condition. However, that provides no guidance as to how to give effect and meaning to this condition. In other words, whether the words are to be construed strictly, naturally or widely is to be gathered from the words of the lease and not from an assumed intention of the draftsman gleaned from his or her drafting exercise being undertaken in the knowledge of the Bairstow Eves case.

In my judgment, Judge Rich’s reasoning is to be followed since it cogently gives meaning to the expression “material” in the context of a breach of covenant and its effect on a break or option clause. In asking whether a breach or compliance is material, it is necessary to ask: “material to what”? The obvious answer is: “material to the landlord and to the obligations of the tenant”. The purpose of a clause limiting the right to exercise a break clause is to enable a landlord to preserve his legitimate interest in ensuring compliance with all the tenant’s covenants by the tenant before he departs. The landlord has an interest in ensuring compliance so that he can relet speedily, that the value of his reversion is not jeopardised and in preserving his income stream from the property by way of further rent. Thus, a breach of the repairing covenant will only be material if these interests are jeopardised by that breach.

I also follow Judge Rich’s reasoning because it gives effect to the word “material”. If Fitzroy’s interpretation is correct, this word is to be given the meaning of “all but insignificant or minor” whereas it in fact means: “in context and taking all relevant considerations into account”.

The Financial Times undertook an extensive programme of repairs. Before this was embarked upon, it made reasonable efforts to engage Fitzroy in meetings and discussions to agree upon the works needed to ensure its compliance with all its repairing obligations. This started with a letter from the Financial Times’ solicitors to Fitzroy’s solicitors dated 12 September 2003 inviting a joint surveyors’ inspection to agree upon the necessary works to be carried out by the Financial Times. The Financial Times appointed as its surveyor Mr Nigel Harrison and, subsequently, Fitzroy appointed Mr Scouller. It is clear that Mr Harrison’s instructions were to advise upon and then execute the necessary reasonable repairs to enable the Financial Times to comply with its requirements of reasonable compliance with its repairing obligations. Mr Scouller, however, was not given instructions enabling him to meet with Mr Harrison or to comment upon the Financial Times’s professionals’ proposed work.

Mr Harrison prepared a detailed specification of works which he sent to Mr Scouller. This was not responded to by Mr Scouller although he was preparing his own schedule of defects which was not sent to the Financial Times’s advisers until after the break date had passed. Mr Harrison sent the specification out to tender and entered into a contract with Botes on the Financial Times’s behalf. The contract was for £721,439 and it lasted for 10 weeks. Ultimately, the final contract sum was £915,689. Mr Scouller had the opportunity to inspect the works as they were being carried out and to undertake a joint completion inspection but did not take up those opportunities.

Following completion of the works, the Financial Times surrendered the keys to Fitzroy who responded, immediately following the break date with a contention that the Financial Times was in substantial breach of its repairing obligations and serving a schedule of alleged defects. Proceedings were started by Fitzroy on 29 September 2004.

The approach to the survey carried out by Mr Scouller was not one that adopted the conventional definition of defect or repair that I have already summarised. Instead, he attempted to find all blemishes, defects, however small or insignificant or potential defects which might emerge in the future. I formed the impression in observing Mr Scouller giving evidence and in showing me the many defects he had, as he saw it, ascertained on site that he saw his role as seeking to identify as many defects as possible so as to enable Fitzroy to hold the Financial Times to the lease because it was not in Fitzroy’s commercial interest to allow the lease to be determined. This approach somewhat clouded his objectivity. On the other hand, I found the Financial Times’s surveyor Mr Day to be fair, open minded and professionally objective in his approach.

Following the departure of the Financial Times and Mr Scouller’s inspection, it was suggested by Mr Sinnett, Fitzroy’s mechanical and electrical engineering expert, that representatives of the Financial Times returned to Castle House and undertook further repairs in an attempt to secure compliance with the repairing obligations. This was based on his recollection of what he had seen on his first inspection compared with a later inspection. I am clear that no such return visit occurred and that the Financial Times made no attempt to return and undertake further remedial work. Mr Sinnett’s recollection is mistaken.

Introduction. Castle House is constructed with a flat roof which is covered with rock asphalt. The building was about 35 years old and had been constructed as a warehouse. However, there was a reference in the purchaser’s report for the landlord that had been compiled in 1999 that suggested that the roof coverings had been renewed at some time during the life of the building and the relatively good condition of the covering suggested to Mr Day that it had only been in place for a few years longer than the lease, in other words that it had probably been replaced during the office conversion works in the late 1980s. I accept that view. However, the rock asphalt material is relatively inflexible and it is prone to split, tear and bubble, particularly at points of weakness such as where it is turned upwards or where it has been repaired. The overall test for it being in good repair is whether it is waterproof and weathertight and will remain so for a reasonable period of time. Replacement is only to be regarded as a necessary option when the covering has reached an age or condition when further patching will not ensure a continuing uniform water barrier to rain and moisture ingress into the fabric and interior of the building.

Asphalt roof surface. Fitzroy complained that the asphalt weathering layer of the flat external roof was blistered in 106 different locations on both the roof surface and the skirting upstands. The size of the splits varied from 20 to 100 mm in diameter. These were complimented by numerous splits and tears in the asphalt surface. Furthermore, the solar reflective paint finish to the surface of the roof and upstands was worn and uneven. The suggested remedy was to cut out all blisters and tears and repair those areas and the splits and rucks with asphalt repairs and to apply a new solar reflective paint finish to all roof surfaces and upstands. The overall value of these repairs was estimated at £4,625. There is a further asphalt area covering the four separate plant rooms for the passenger lift, the two goods lifts and the tank room. These exhibit blisters wrinkles and other blemishes which in total are estimated to cost £1,060.

The two surveyors agreed that there were blisters, splits and wrinkles to the asphalt surface present on the break date and that a solar reflective finish had also been applied to all roof areas. The difference between the parties was that Fitzroy suggested that substantial asphalt patch repairs were required coupled with a further solar reflective paint finish whereas the Financial Times contended that most of the blemishes in the asphalt surface had occurred in the fifteen months since the break date and that the few remaining blemishes were insignificant and not requiring remedy. The reflective paint surface was not defective since, although uneven, it had been adequately applied and was satisfactorily fulfilling its reflective function.

The rock asphalt surface, being relatively inflexible, can give rise to potential areas of failure wherever it is repaired since the site of the repair creates a new joint which is susceptible to further failure. The roof covering was not, however, nearing the end of its effective working life since it was no more than about fifteen years old. The surveyors both accepted that the roof covering would require complete replacement at some stage but that that stage was still some distance in the future. Overall, the roof was in good repair in the sense of not admitting water and of being capable of being patched as and when further tears and other areas of weakness opened up. The repairs that had been done during the Financial Times repair programme were regarded as sufficient by the professionals supervising the work at that time and many of the blemishes that I observed had clearly appeared since the break date.

The alleged defect in the paint finish was that it had been unevenly applied so that the radiation it was subject to would not be reflected evenly, thereby creating a deleterious effect on the underlying asphalt. However, it was clear from the surveyors’ evidence that this type of coating is typically uneven in application and that the exhibited unevenness was within acceptable limits. The suggested potential long term deleterious effects that it would have on the underlying asphalt were both speculative and unsubstantiated.

I conclude that only a few inexpensive patching repairs at most were required to put the roof into a condition which enabled compliance with the repairing covenant at the break date and that nothing further was required to repair or reinstate the paint covering. No substantial defect or breach of covenant was established.

Joints. Fitzroy made two series of complaints about various joints in the upstands and copings, being those relating to the poor workmanship to these joints during the repairing programme and to their general deteriorated condition. There were two workmanship complaints. The first related to the lead expansion joint cover on the Paul Street elevation had been overlaid with bitumous felt. This was said to give rise to a temporary solution given that the original cover was made of lead. The second related to the joints between all remaining copings in a number of locations which had been pointed with grey mastic rather than with the original mortar. The mastic was starting to shrink and where this was occurring, a potential path for water ingress had been created. The general deterioration complained of related to isolated locations where the asphalt skirting upstands had cracked and where there were wide open joints and cracking in the pointing between coping stones on the parapet wall. The suggested remedial work for all these complaints was valued at about £1,925. Further areas with similar complaints associated with each of the four plant rooms are also identified with an estimated remedial cost for all such complaints totalling £650.

The answer to these complaints was twofold. As to the workmanship complaints, it was alleged that the use of felt overlay over the expansion joint had been a satisfactory way of repairing the cracking around the adjacent cracked asphalt joint. As to the over pointing, it was accepted that there was some evidence of this but this had not given rise to any loose or debonded coping stones and there was no evidence of water ingress through or around the areas in question. As to the general complaints of general deterioration and cracked or open joints, it was said that the overall condition of the areas in question was one of good repair since there was no evidence of water ingress and there were few areas where there was evident joint cracking or openness. Finally, such cracking as was evident had occurred since the break date.

Having inspected these areas, I accept the evidence of Mr Day and I conclude that there was no, or only minimal, evidence of continuing breaches of the repairing obligations on the break date in relation to these complaints. Much of the cracking or joint covering loss that was evident was obviously of recent origin and had occurred in the fifteen months since the break date.

External Elevations

Introduction. Fitzroy made a series of complaints about the state of the external elevations. The principal complaint was that all elevations were so dirty that each required cleaning using jet hosing from scaffolding. The external elevations to Paul Street, Clere Street and Epworth Street were of brick and the suggested cost of scaffolding and cleaning these elevations was approximately £4,600. The cleaning of the internal elevations to the courtyard was costed at approximately £2,100. In addition, much of the proposed cost of scaffolding, a figure of £25,000, is attributable to these cleaning exercises. The other complaints related to two isolated complaints of individual damaged bricks requiring replacement, eleven individual areas of particular staining or localised blemishes and a particular area of badly scoured brickwork. The cost of repairing the scored brickwork was put at approximately £750 and of all the other complaints at approximately £1,735.

Brickwork cleaning. The brickwork consists of an engineering brick typical of an industrial-type building in that location. Clearly, the brickwork will slowly darken with age, given its susceptibility to urban pollution. However, any brickwork will do the same. The only difference is that the aged appearance of an industrial brick is more obvious, if only because it is less familiar particularly on office blocks. Therefore, purely cosmetic cleaning of the overall surface would not ordinarily come within the requirements of a repairing covenant. On the other hand, if the surface was stained by water, air conditioning plant emissions, bird droppings or other natural or man-made contamination, cleaning so as to remove such excrescence would usually be required by a repairing covenant both to remove a potential source of contamination of the structure and an obvious and unpleasant eyesore.

These considerations are reinforced by the potential problems that high pressure water jet cleaning can cause. This method of cleaning is the usual and most obvious method of cleaning external surfaces since other methods require chemicals which will usually discolour or cause deterioration of the building fabric. The jet hosing can cause deterioration of the brickwork surface by erosion which can leave the cleaned surface both in a worse condition and less sightly than it had previously been. It follows that brickwork cleaning should not be undertaken unless and until there is a structural need for such cleaning to be undertaken.

Mr Scouller was of the opinion that the present condition of the brickwork was deleterious to the long term condition of the structure because the dirty surface would contain deposits which will attack the matrix of the brickwork which, in turn, will promote frost action, spalling and other weathering to occur. Mr Day disagreed. He pointed out that an engineering brick, which had been used on all elevations, was a much more durable brick than other bricks more customarily used in urban buildings. I take judicial notice of this obvious feature of engineering bricks since it is demonstrated in the frequent use of engineering bricks, often over many decades, in many locations such as railway embankments. Furthermore, Mr Day could see no evidence of any decay, even in its early stages. His view was clearly summed up in this passage of his evidence:

Mr Scouller was unable to point to any examples of brickwork which had deteriorated due to deposit attack from surface air-borne deposits which had not been cleaned off the surface. He had not seen deterioration of this kind in other buildings. He also accepted that this cleaning work did not come within the ambit of the repairing covenant but, for the first time in the witness box, asserted that it fell within the cleaning covenant of the lease.

I conclude that the cleaning exercise suggested is not required of the Financial Times by any covenant in the lease, is not necessary for structural reasons and would be potentially harmful of the building fabric in any event. My inspection of the brickwork also suggested to me that this cleaning is not necessary for purely cosmetic and aesthetic reasons. Therefore, there is no breach of the repairing covenants arising from the uncleaned nature of the brick elevations.

Other complaints. The scored brickwork is located adjacent to the electrical sub-station cupboard. Evidently, a small badly scored section of brickwork was replaced during the repairing programme. The bricks about which complaint is made were immediately adjacent to this area and were not so badly scored. Their structural integrity has not been damaged, unlike the replaced bricks and the scoring is purely cosmetic. The issue of whether, and if so which, remaining scored bricks should be replaced could and should have been resolved on site during the repairing programme. The decision as to where to draw the line between replacement and retention was taken by the professionals at the time and is not one which can be seen to have been irrational or unreasonable. Thus, the remaining scored bricks do not constitute a breach of the repairing covenants.

The other complaints relate, in part, to the manner in which the repairing programme was undertaken and, in part, to isolated blemishes which are in some instances too trivial to constitute a defect and in the remaining instances minor defects. I would assess the overall value of the defects constituting a breach of the repairing covenant as being about one quarter of the claimed figure of £1,735.

Windows

Introduction. There are two different complaints. The principal complaint concerns the bomb protection placed on the inner face of all the windows. This protection is provided by a thin plastic sheet which has been stuck onto the inner face of all glass surfaces to prevent splinters and shattered glass from being propelled into the offices if a bomb explodes in their vicinity. This protective coating was removed and replaced with a fresh protective coating during the repair programme and complaint is made that the replacement coating is scratched, bubbled and dimpled in many locations and Fitzroy contends that all the plastic sheeting requires to be replaced. The second series of complaints relate to the dirty nature of many of the windows which have been left with paint and mortar droppings, efflorescence between the frames and displaced gaskets. Fitzroy contends that these problems require all the windows and their surrounding frames, beading and cills to be overhauled and cleaned. The estimated cost of replacing the plastic sheeting is put at £11,400 and of overhauling and cleaning the windows at £9,345.

Bomb film. The film coating of about 143 panes was replaced. Mr Scouller contended that many of these panes were replaced with a coating which now contains bubbles and scratches and that the result is unsightly. The bubbles, he suggested, were caused by poor preparation of the glass surface before it was offered up to the plastic coating, particularly dirty and soapy water being left on the surface. The suggested cause of the scratching was hasty cleaning during the suggested rushed final clean before the repair programme works were completed just before the deadline immediately before the break date expired.

I carefully inspected many of the windows and could not observe more than a small number of bubbles and blemishes and only saw one instance of a scratched plastic coating. The remaining scratches are, therefore, barely visible. It is therefore not strictly necessary for me to decide whether or not such blemishes fall within the repairing covenant at all. The Financial Times asserted that they did not, on the grounds that they were tenant’s fixtures and in any case did not constitute disrepair but were merely cosmetic blemishes. Fitzroy contended that it was necessary for all blemishes and scratches to be removed by replacement to provide compliance with the repairing covenant.

I am satisfied that any significant and readily discernible blemish, if found on a significant number of window panes, could amount to disrepair since they are unsightly and the plastic coating is intended to be laid proud of the window pane. This is so even though the bubbles and scratches do not in any way effect the ability of the shatter protective coating to fulfil its safety function. Had the visual effect been generally of that unsightly kind, Fitzroy would have the beginnings of a case that the result amounted to disrepair. However, the actual effect is such that there are only a handful of unsightly window panes. The two surveyors agreed that there were 17 scratches which penetrated to the window below. However, these are neither unsightly nor detrimental to the safety function of the plastic covering. Thus, there are a handful of windows (I counted six) that can reasonably be said to be in disrepair because they have significant surface blemishes that are unsightly. The reasonable value for the replacement of these coverings is no more than about £300 or £50 per pane, the unit cost that the Financial Times paid to the sub-contractor who replaced the plastic coating during the repair programme.

Overhauling and cleaning. The Financial Times accepts that there are some defects amounting to breaches of the repairing covenant left behind after the repair programme had been completed at a value of about £2,000. This sum covered the cleaning needed to remove paint and other splatter and to provide a thorough clean of the windows. This latter exercise was not strictly necessary since the windows had all been thoroughly cleaned using a sugar soap solution at a late stage in the repair programme.

The remaining dispute concerned the overhauling of most of the windows. Mr Scouller contended that the splits in the external seals required repairing. This would involve an involved exercise whereby, initially, the internal beading and glazing would have to be removed. This would have to be followed by the fixing of new seals to the base of the external frame. Finally, the removed internal glazing and beading would have to be replaced.

The two experts selected at random a sample window and examined it at length. This window had a 3 mm depth split to the left hand end of the external lower seal.The seal had not failed and was still fulfilling its function properly. However, it was agreed that the profile of the seal was in the process of gradual change and that these defects might ultimately lead to a failure of the seal. Mr Day, on that basis, concluded that the seals were not, currently, in disrepair and would only come within the ambit of the repairing covenant when the seal started to fail. Mr Scouller disagreed because he contended that any potential defect could and should be remedied under the requirements of the repairing covenant.

I accept the evidence of Mr Day. The tears that were visible were not unsightly nor obviously of concern and since the seal will continue to perform its function for some time to come, the extensive remedial work involved in replacing the seal is not, at this stage, warranted.

The overall conclusion is that the established breaches can be valued at no more than about £2,300.

Internal Areas

Introduction. The repair programme involved extensive renewal, redecoration and repair to the internal finishes including the blinds, partitions, floor coverings and wall surfaces. The complaints made by Fitzroy about this work relate to a long series of complaints about internal doors which were replaced which do not match those that remain; humps in the newly laid carpet; areas of poorly finished, damaged or incomplete paintwork; and floorbox lids which were not left flush with the raised floor around the floor boxes. The overall estimated cost of repairing these items is put at about £7,500.

Two more substantial complaints are made. The first is that the ground floor walls have been painted instead of being vinyled as the first and second floor walls have been. This vinyling exercise is estimated as costing £5,910. The second relates to extensive localised damage to and around an area of the suspended ceiling on the second floor which has been badly damaged by water ingress. Further damp patches and the need to eradicate the damp penetration and make good the damage are also complained about. The necessary repairs for all these complaints is estimated to be about £500.

Interior decoration. Mr Scouller’s view was that the paintwork in the areas he drew attention to was unsatisfactory and required localised repainting. Mr Day disagreed although there were one or two areas where touching up was desirable. Following my own observations, I agreed with Mr Day.

Many of the internal doors were damaged and over painted and it was not possible to match their replacements with the original joinery. A decision was taken to replace all the first and second floor doors and the replacement doors all match each other although they do not provide an exact match with the surrounding architraves and door frames or the adjacent skirting. The doors that did not match were to cupboards and toilets but when these were inspected, it was clear that there was no obvious or jarring mismatch. The complaint was no more than that Mr Scouller would have himself chosen every door to be of the same shade with the surrounding woodwork. The finished effect is not unsatisfactory nor, in consequence, a breach of the repairing, repainting or reinstatement covenants.

Mr Scouller contended that the floor carpets, which were made up of carpet tiles, should have been left even. Mr Day contended that any incoming tenant would need to take up the carpet to lay cabling and other fittings and then replace the carpet so that its present somewhat uneven look would disappear once this had been done. Moreover, the tiles would have settled down if they had been subjected to a regular working office heated and air conditioned environment. Again, Mr Day’s views are those that I find to be correct with regard to this series of complaints.

Overall, I conclude that an appropriate value to put on those limited number of defects which could be said to constitute a breach of covenant is about one tenth of that placed on them by Fitzroy.

Ground floor walls. At the time of the grant of the lease, the ground floor walls were finished in emulsion paint whereas the other walls were finished in vinyl. This was in conformity with the different use then being made of the ground floor to the offices above. No stipulation was placed in the lease that the walls had to be redecorated with vinyl even if they were emulsioned originally. In any case, the finished wall surfaces do not have an unsatisfactory appearance. For both reasons, no breach of the repairing covenant occurred.

Damp penetration. The large hole in the suspended ceiling appears to have resulted from water penetration from a storm which entered because the storm led to a lift shaft allowing storm water to enter or a pipe to leak. The building was empty and not subject to regular inspections and when the leak started there was no one on hand to put a stop to the water entry. There was a limited area of dampness which appears to be drying out since successive damp meter readings showed a reduction in dampness in the affected area. This suggested reduction in dampness is disputed by Mr Scouller but the difference between his remedial solution and Mr Day’s remedial solution is £500 against Mr Day’s £180. Whichever view is correct, the defect is insubstantial and, if a breach of the repairing covenant at all, is not to be valued in excess of £500.

Sundry Items

WCs. In the second floor WCs, Mr Scouller reported 14 cracked floor tiles in the southern male WC; two loose WC seats; 6 cracked edges to mirrors; and unvarnished skirtings. In the first floor WCs, he reported some blown tiling and unvarnished skirtings. Similar complaints were made in relation to the ground floor WCs. These alleged breaches of covenant were valued in total at approximately £1,800.

Mr Scouller described these complaints as comparatively minor. Mr Day did not accept that they were breaches of covenant at all. At best they were snagging items following the repair programme which could and, no doubt would, have been put right had the Financial Times been invited to complete the snagging work after the break date. Few of them are significant enough to constitute breaches of the repairing covenant, at best only the item involving blown tiling is in this category. That was valued at £760.

Main entrance. Complaint is made of areas of staining and uneven skirtings. These complaints do not constitute defects within the ambit of the repairing covenant or are minor or fair wear and tear items.

Main staircase. Complaint is made of marked and scratched areas, a detached tile and uneven paint surfaces. Again, these complaints do not constitute defects within the ambit of the repairing covenant or are minor or fair wear and tear items.

Southern fire escape. Complaint is made of paint splashes; a scoured and scratched plastic banister rail and in the plastic glazing of the escape doors; ill-fitting locking mechanism to a fire escape door and gaps in the carpet tiles. Again, these complaints do not constitute defects within the ambit of the repairing covenant or are minor or fair wear and tear items.

Courtyard. Complaint is made of pointing to the paving slabs and a crack in the tarmac surface. These are accepted in the combined sum of £225. Complaint is also made of unlevel paving slabs and depressions in the tarmac. Neither is a defect within the ambit of the repairing covenant nor are other than minor or fair wear and tear items.

Drainage. Complaint is made that line D from manhole 2 was subject to 25% obstruction and that four manhole covers had not been painted. Mr Day answers by pointing out that line D was neither blocked nor malfunctioning so was not in a state of disrepair. The manhole covers did not require to be painted given their location so, again, no defect was established. I accept Mr Day’s evidence.

Asbestos. The building was cleared of asbestos in 1986. Unfortunately, the asbestos survey could not be located so another survey was undertaken by the Financial Times at level 2, the appropriate level of survey, which revealed no asbestos. This enabled the Financial Times to comply with its obligations under the asbestos regulations and, hence, under its repairing obligations in the lease. However, Fitzroy undertook a second level 2 survey which revealed some debris faintly contaminated with asbestos left in a ceiling void in the entrance door. This minor item has been accepted as an item of disrepair which will cost about £2,800 to remove.

Mechanical and Electrical Items

Air handling plant. The VAV system was upgraded by the repair programme and commissioned just before the break date. The specification of the original plant was not available so that its design rate of air handling was not known. The commissioning test certificate stated that the plant achieved 59% of its design capacity which, if correct, placed the VAV system in breach of the BISRIA recommended 100% - 110% range of design capacity. If the performance rating was in fact as low as 59%, it was suggested that the system would, when operated in an occupied building, fall below the minimum required by Health and Safety legislation. On the basis of this one certificate, Fitzroy contended that the system was defective and might require up to £10,000 being spent to track down the cause of this under performance and then rectify it. This exercise might well involve dismantling the ceiling and entering the ductwork above.

The Financial Times disputed this item on the basis that the certificate did not establish a defect. The VAV system would only be defective if it was functioning at 59% of its design and installed capacity but no-one knew what that capacity was. The commissioning engineer probably made his own calculations or assumptions as to the theoretical capacity of the upgraded system, being the original system to which had been added an upgrade some years later, and ascertained what percentage achievement of that hypothetical capacity was being achieved during the commissioning. Thus, the certifier must have made an assumption as to the design capacity of a system which was at least 10 years old and to which an upgrade had been added.

However, as the Financial Times pointed out, the system had worked sufficiently and satisfactorily throughout the period of the lease so that, even if it was working at 59% of an unknown rating, it had apparently worked at the required 100% of the original but unknown rating since there had been no evident problem or complaint about its working capacity at any time.

I accept the Financial Times’ case. The burden of proving a defect in the system that required to be remedied lay on Fitzroy and this burden was not discharged merely by placing in evidence one commissioning certificate of the upgraded plant which was based on an unstated capacity which did not appear to have any relationship to the original design capacity which was the only relevant capacity for use in determining whether the system was in disrepair. Thus, this item fails on the evidence.

Chilled water pumps. Fitzroy contended that the chilled water pumps in the roof top boiler house were rattling. This rattling was observed by Mr Sinnett but not by Mr Eaton since the pumps were not working on the day of his survey. However, the pumps had been commissioned during the repair programme and were observed to be working within normal tolerances. Mr Sinnett could not state what was wrong, if anything, with the pumps. The noise he heard could have been caused by trapped air, which could readily be released, or by faulty bearings requiring replacement. Since the system had been satisfactorily commissioned soon before the break date and had worked apparently satisfactorily before that, I conclude that the noise was caused by trapped air occasioned by the lengthy period of lay off to which the system had been subject. It follows that this is not a breach.

Broken and missing Belimo wall controllers. The air conditioning was subject to controllers located on the columns and walls of the open plan offices. Many of the adjustment levers for these controllers had been removed to prevent the occupants from adjusting the air conditioning and thereby putting it out of balance. It would appear that the levers had been removed before the lease had been entered into. It appears that it is no longer possible to buy replacement levers from Belimo since they are now out of production and stock. Fitzroy now seek to have special levers made which are replicas of those still in place at a total cost, for the 37 missing levers, of £5,500. The Financial Times contends that it has no obligation to replace these at all since they were always missing. As an alternative, it accepts the need to replace the levers but contends that clips can be obtained which can be fitted and which will do the same job satisfactorily. The cost of these clips would be about £150. Alternatively, VAV units can be adjusted manually by opening the control cover.

The obvious and common sense answer to this complaint is that the means of adjusting the VAV units must be provided but by means of the clips. Thus, this is a minor breach of covenant whose value is about £150 - £300.

Ceiling grilles and diffusers. Fitzroy contended that the ceiling grilles were very dirty and required cleaning. The excessively dirty nature of the grilles suggested that there were problems elsewhere in the air handling units and it was also contended that the dirt could cause sick building syndrome in workers working beneath them. The Financial Times contended that the grilles were not dirty but were merely aged albeit not worn out.

I inspected the grilles and they did not appear unduly dirty. I therefore accepted the views of Mr Watkins and concluded that this item had not been proved to be a defect at all.

Fire hose reel. Fitzroy contended that the second floor north area fire hose reel was subject to a major leak as shown by the notice it displayed to that effect which it was carrying when Mr Sinnett inspected the building. However, Mr Watkins stated that he had knowledge that the hose reel had been tested satisfactorily during the repair programme and that the notice had been left in error by the commissioning contractor. In the absence of any testing of the hose reel, this item fails on the burden of proof.

Floor box switches. Fitzroy contended that the majority of the floor boxes lacked switches and that several boxes had minor defects. The boxes should have switches added and the defects remedied. However, as the Financial Times contended, these items were tenant’s fixtures which could have been removed. Instead, each box was refurbished and left in good condition for the incoming tenant. They never had switches and the other defects were trivial or of recent origin subsequent to the break date. Had Fitzroy wanted these boxes to have switches added, they should have informed the Financial Times of that fact during the repair programme. I accept the Financial Times’ contentions. This complaint fails.

Operating and maintenance manuals. Fitzroy contended that the electrical operating and maintenance manuals left by the Financial Times’ commissioning contractor were inadequate and required substantial work to ensure that they were complete. The Financial Times contended, and this was not disputed, that no manuals had been provided at the outset of the lease. When they departed, they left a full set of NICEIC electrical test certificates so that the material complied with current IEE regulations. Furthermore, all distribution board schedules had been installed within the cupboards housing those boards. The other material that was left comprised the best that was available given the age of the installation and the absence of any existing manuals. I accept the Financial Times’ contentions. This complaint fails.

Remaining Mechanical and Electrical items. There were a further 12 items which were agreed in a total sum of £1,650 and a further 35 minor items which were all disputed and which totalled, on Fitzroy’s figures, £9,590. These items were, in the main, overstated or not breaches of the repairing covenant but even if they were accepted in full, they constituted no more than insubstantial breaches of the repairing covenant.

Overall Costs

The overall effect of my findings is that, taking Fitzroy’s approximate figures and applying them to the relatively few and insignificant items which I have found proved, Fitzroy has established a maximum value of defects amounting to breaches of the repairing covenants of no more than £20,000 including supervision fees. This overall figure covers all claimed items including the external, internal and mechanical and electrical items.

Each party called a lettings and valuation surveyor with a detailed knowledge of the City of London lettings market. These two experts reached substantial agreement as to the relevant factual background. In the light of the relatively limited value of outstanding defects, the two experts’ evidence was broadly agreed. The letting market was almost at its bottom in April 2004, which is why Fitzroy was so keen to hold the Financial Times to its lease if at all possible. At that time, there was a vacancy rate of about 16% of the total stock. If a tenant was found, that tenant might well have negotiated up to a two year rent-free period and might have attempted to secure a longer rent-free period if there were significant defects in the building. However, if the total value of the defects was no more than about £20,000, the effect of their evidence was that there would not have been any substantial effect on the ultimate terms agreed. These defects would not have deterred a potential tenant but it might have taken some months to find one and then there would have been a substantial rent-free initial period.

I conclude that the Financial Times had materially complied with all its obligations on 1 April 2004 and it therefore succeeded in breaking the lease and determining it on that date. I reach that conclusion for these reasons:

The number, nature and value of the outstanding defects was insubstantial.

The Financial Times had taken all reasonable steps to put and keep the premises into repair, had spent nearly £1 million for that purpose and had followed professional advice as to what was required.

The Financial Times made all reasonable efforts to secure the agreement of Fitzroy to what was needed to ensure compliance and it is clear that it would have incorporated any reasonable requirement of Fitzroy into its remedial programme if asked.

Fitzroy unreasonably declined to involve itself in the Financial Times’s attempts to agree a remedial programme and adopted an attitude of waiting and seeing whether it could catch the Financial Times out on a technicality so as to prevent it from determining the lease because the market was so soft.

The outstanding defects had no effect on the ability of Fitzroy to obtain a further tenant nor on any terms that it could reasonably expect to negotiate. In particular, these defects would not have deterred prospective tenants nor have led to a longer rent-free period or to a lower rent being agreed.

It would be most unreasonable to the Financial Times if it was unable to determine the lease and it would also be most unreasonable if Fitzroy, given its behaviour, was able to prevent such a determination from occurring.

Fitzroy contended that the effect of the condition that there should be material compliance with the terms of the lease meant that there would not be material compliance unless the only breaches in existence on the break date were trivial and of the kind that would occur if a screw was missing or loose in a particular location.

In my view, that interpretation of the condition is unduly narrow even if the expression “materially complied” has a narrow meaning of the kind contended for by Fitzroy. In other words, whatever meaning is given to this phrase, it was applicable so as to allow the Financial Times to operate the break clause successfully.

I reach this conclusion for these reasons:

Each breach that I have found to have existed was, in itself, either minor or trivial. When taken together, the breaches still amounted to minor or trivial breaches of the repairing covenant.

The repairing covenant has two components: namely, firstly, to require the tenant to perform the remedial works so as to put the premises in repair and, secondly, to leave the premises in a repaired state. The Financial Times used all reasonable endeavours to perform its obligations, as is inevitable in a building of any size so it performed and was not in breach of the first part of the covenant. At worst, it left a residual but limited number of limited breaches at the conclusion of the repair programme and was in breach only to that extent.

It is clear from the expert valuers’ evidence that the limited nature of the remaining breaches was such that the overall damage to the reversion was negligible or nil. Thus, no recoverable damages, or only trivial damages, resulted from the breaches. If so, the overall effect of the breaches must itself also be minimal or trivial.

The lease was determined on 1^st April 2004 and the Financial Times is entitled to be repaid its claimed overpaid insurance premium in the sum of £19,058.30. Furthermore, Fitzroy is not entitled to the declarations it seeks nor to the claimed unpaid rent or insurance premiums. I leave for further argument whether it is entitled to any damages for the breaches of the repairing obligations that I have found to exist.