Summary

On 12 June, the Chancery Division of the High Court gave its judgment on Triplark Limited v Whale & Ors [2024] EWHC 1440 (Ch). The landlord in this case wanted to install a new heating system, which the defendant tenants argued would make their repairing obligations more onerous. The Court ruled that, because installing a second heating system was not in the contemplation of the parties when they entered into the lease, the declarations that the landlord sought (which would have confirmed its ability to do this) were not granted. This case will be of importance to landlords wanting to upgrade their heating systems, particularly with the need to adhere to new environmental regulations. 

The Decision

The landlord wanted to change the way that the heating system (which supplied 194 flats) operated. The proposed new system required heat exchanger units (HUI) to be installed in each flat. These had not been necessary under the previous system.

The landlord sought declarations from the court that it could replace the hot water and/or the central heating system even though the new system was not identical to the last, but provided the same service. It also sought a declaration that it could disconnect the flats from the old system and reconnect them to the new system. 

At the heart of this judgment lay the Judge’s interpretation of the clauses in the tenants’  leases. The landlord had an obligation to maintain, repair and renew the communal system.  There was also a covenant in each lease that required the tenant to repair the central heating and water apparatus that was solely serving their own flat, whether within the flat or outside of their demise. 

Importantly, the tenants were also obliged to keep in repair the heating and hot water apparatus as well as any additions to these. 

The Judge commented that it seemed an “exorbitant construction” of the repairing covenant that the landlord could make any additions it wished and then expect the tenant to carry out repairs to those additions as if they were fixtures within its demise. The Judge commented that if the landlord argued that it would only ever make reasonable additions, that would require reading words into the leases that were not there. 

The Court refused to grant the declarations sought by the landlord. If the declarations had been given, then the way that the leases operate would have changed. It would have changed the repairing covenant because it would have fallen upon the tenants to repair the HUIs that would need to be added- this would have been an additional burden on the tenants that was not contemplated by the parties when they entered into their leases.