In Ramsbury Properties Ltd v Ocean View Construction Ltd [2024] UKPC 40, the Privy Council was asked to decide how to interpret a landlord covenant to provide "sleeping accommodation only", and whether in this case there was a repudiatory breach by the landlord entitling the tenant to terminate the lease.
Why is this case significant?
It establishes that a tenant can rescind a lease if it can show that the landlord's breach amounts to a repudiatory breach which the tenant has accepted. It used to be thought that a lease could not be brought to an end by repudiation and acceptance in the same way as other contracts, because it grants an interest in land.
What's a repudiatory breach?
A repudiatory breach is normally understood to be a breach which either deprives the other party of substantially all the benefit of the contract, or which breaches one of the key terms of a contract. Such a breach can give rise to a right to terminate a contract immediately.
1 The facts
Ocean View entered into a lease of a building on a modified commercial site from Ramsbury Properties to house 250 of its Mexican workers during their planned seven-month works period carrying out repairs to the Four Seasons Hotel on Nevis. The workers moved in during June 2009 but, within the month, Ocean View notified Ramsbury that they were terminating the lease and vacating the premises, moving into an alternative building. Ramsbury denied any breach of the lease and claimed the balance of the rent for the 7-month term of the lease.
2 What was the tenant's case?
Ocean View argued that its workers had been forbidden from eating on the premises, there was no provision for them to dry their clothing, and the air conditioning was inadequate.
3 What was the landlord's case?
Ramsbury pointed to the fact that the lease clearly stated that the lease was granted for "sleeping accommodation only".
4 What did the Privy Council decide?
The court decided that the words "sleeping accommodation only" did not mean that the workers were forbidden from consuming meals or doing their laundry on the premises. On the contrary, "sleeping accommodation only" included being permitted to carry out the basics of life such as eating, doing laundry, and washing. Its interpretation of the expression "sleeping accommodation only" in the context of this factual matrix was that, under the agreement which was eventually entered into, Ramsbury was not itself going to provide meals or cooking facilities.
In terms of repudiatory breach, the court followed the case of Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26 in which the judges explored the question of whether the breach went "to the root of the contract". They also discussed the caselaw which established that repudiatory breach can apply to a lease, looking at Hussein v Mehlman [1992] 2 EGLR 87 and Chartered Trust plc v Davies [1997] 2 EGLR 83.
They highlighted the importance of the fact that the purpose of the lease agreement from Ocean View's perspective was to accommodate the Mexican workers so that the hotel repair work that Ocean View was contractually bound to carry out could be fulfilled, which Ramsbury well knew. The consequence of the breach was that Ocean View was faced with the immediate prospect of 60 of their workers going back to Mexico, and if they could not complete the hotel repair contract on time, they would have to pay substantial damages for breach of that contract and would also suffer loss of reputation. In the court's view, those were sufficiently serious commercial consequences of the breach by Ramsbury as to entitle Ocean View to terminate the lease.
5 Conclusion
Why is this case significant for landlords?
Although the facts are quite unusual, the case Is a good reminder that a tenant can exit a lease without a break right if the landlord breaches their covenant for quiet enjoyment and/or the covenant not to derogate from grant. It should also focus landlords' minds on whether they need to spell out any limitations on use, or other specific aspects of the property, before the lease is granted.
Why is this case significant for tenants?
Notwithstanding that the court emphasised that "the facts of this case are exceptional", corporate occupiers will find this case a useful example of their ability to exit a lease if their landlord breaches its covenant for quiet enjoyment and/or the covenant not to derogate from grant. At the very least, this should help to bring a landlord to the table to discuss the tenant's concerns.
What is the relevance of the fact that the case was decided by the Privy Council in the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (St Christopher and Nevis)?
It means that the case is not technically binding on courts in England and Wales, but has significant persuasive authority so it is likely to be followed by first-instance courts in this jurisdiction and other jurisdictions which have adopted the English common law system.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
