The High Court gave judgment on 10 June 2026 in a dispute between a freeholder and the long lessee of 25 residential flats at The Drapery, Northampton, over repair works and access under a 999-year lease.
Key facts
- Who: The freeholder and the long lessee of 1/1A The Drapery, Northampton
- From: 10 June 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: MSA Properties Limited v The Drapery Northampton Ltd [2026] EWHC 1420 (KB)
The High Court (King's Bench Division), Elizabeth O'Neill sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court, gave judgment in [2026] EWHC 1420 (KB) on 10 June 2026, after a hearing in April 2026.
Background
The claimant, MSA Properties Limited, is freeholder of 1/1A The Drapery, Northampton. The defendant, The Drapery Northampton Ltd, holds a lease of the first to fourth floors, which contain 25 residential flats. The lease is dated 24 December 1999 and runs for 999 years from 25 December 1998. The ground floor has two commercial units and a loading bay and bin store.
On 16 August 2022 part of the loading bay ceiling below flats 16 and 17 collapsed. It revealed historic water leaks and rotten structural joists supporting the first floor. Neither party disputed that seven joists were rotten and needed repair.
The freeholder said it must replace the joists, that this could practically be done only from above, and that the flats would need to be vacated for about 10 weeks. It sought specific performance and an injunction giving access for a two-day inspection and ten weeks of works, and requiring the flats to be empty. The lessee said the joists could be repaired rather than replaced, that works could be done from the loading bay below, and that its right to quiet enjoyment meant there was no right of access.
The lessee also counterclaimed £9,404.3 in lost rent, alleging that delay in repairing the ceiling led to a fire service enforcement notice in November 2023 prohibiting occupation of the flats. The freeholder denied breach and blamed the lessee for delay.
The questions
The parties agreed four issues: whether the joists need replacing or can be repaired; whether the freeholder can choose replacement; whether the works can practicably be done without access to the flats; and whether the lessee had a proper basis under the lease to refuse access.
The reasoning on the lease
The court rejected an approach that would automatically limit a landlord's choice of repair method. It said that would confine landlords to piecemeal repairs on long leases. Balancing the repairing covenant against quiet enjoyment is fact-sensitive, and neither prevails in principle. Relevant factors include the lease terms, the extent of disrepair, the risks and advantages of each method and the impact on the tenant. A method requiring the tenant to give up possession calls for correspondingly weighty justification.
On this lease, the court noted that the repairing covenant covers renewal and upkeep of structure, floors and ceilings, and that the landlord's right of entry extends to works it may carry out, not only those it must. That right is qualified: the person entering must cause as little damage and disturbance as is reasonably practicable and make good damage.
What this means for tenants and landlords
The court treated the repairing covenant, the quiet enjoyment covenant and the right of entry as parts of one lease to be read together. It said the balance between them depends on the facts and on the wording of the lease in question.
Sources
- MSA Properties Limited v The Drapery Northampton Ltd [2026] EWHC 1420 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 10 June 2026