Gilligan v Silke

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1964
• Date: 01 January 1964
• Court: Supreme Court

(H.C., S.C.)

Gilligan

and

Silke

Expiration of lease - Premises in bad state of repair - Condition of disrepair brought to lessees' notice - Whether cost of repairs excessive in proportion to value of tenement -Whether lessees' acts or omissions amounted to "wilful waste" - Damages for breach of covenant - Limitations on amount recoverable - Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, s. 55.

By lease dated the 22nd March, 1856, premises, which originally consisted of a dwellinghouse but to which a shop had been added fronting the street and an annex at the rear, and over the basement of which two storeys had been erected, were demised subject to a covenant by the lessee to "preserve, uphold, support, maintain and keep the said demised premises and every part thereof and all improvements made thereon in good and sufficient order repair and condition and at the end of the time hereof granted or other sooner determination of the demise shall and will so leave and yield up the same . . ."At the expiration of the term the premises were in a bad state of repair notwithstanding that notice of disrepair had been served on the lessees on a number of occasions. In an action for damages for breach of the covenant to yield up in repair, Davitt P. found that at the expiration of the term the premises were in very bad repair; that their market value, if sold in the dilapidated condition, would be £1,000; that it would have cost £1,000 to put them into repair at the expiration of the lease and their market value when so repaired would be £2,000; that the cost of carrying out the repairs in accordance with the covenant did not involve expenditure excessive in proportion to the value of the premises having regard to their age, condition, character and situation: he accordingly gave judgment for £1,500, as representing a fair sum for the cost of the repairs. The President did not consider it necessary to determine whether the want of repair was due to wilful damage or wilful waste, which would prevent the provisions of s. 55 (b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, from operating to relieve the defendants from their liability. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. Held by the Supreme Court (Lavery, Kingsmill Moore and Maguire JJ.), allowing the appeal, 1, that the damages recoverable for the admitted breach of covenant should be assessed at the sum of £1,000 and not £1,500; 2, that under s. 55 (b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, having regard to the age...