HOTEL LEASE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 296, 13 September 1927, Page 7

HOTEL LEASE

- REPAIRS IN DISPUTE J. H. Staples ana Co., Ltd., brought an action against John Berryman and Elizabeth Berryman in the Supreme Gertirt yesterday for .£292 19s. (id. ana interest upon it from December, 1923. Mr. Justice Ostler heard the case. Mr. A. W Blair, who appeared tor Staples and Co. said that defendants were the licensees of the Pier Hotel. Staples and Co. had been the head lessees of. the hotel, having taken -.a years’ lease from the Downes Estate in 1900. They had sub-let the premises to Berryman in December, 1921. the sublease" containing the same covenants as the head lease as to repairs of the premises, except that the plaintiff agreed to do all the papering, painting and varnishing required by the head lease. Plaintiffs were called on by the Downes Estate to effect certain repairs and passed this request on to the Berrymans. As the defendants did not make the repairs, Staples and Co. had them done at a cost of £490 12s. .Some of the repairs made included painting and papering, and plaintiff made no claim iwth reference to these Hie defendants paid on account £197 12s. fid. and disputed liability for the balance holding that the repairs which they" were called on to perform were unnecessary and the cost too great. The main dispute concerned the root Colin Campbell Crump, building valuer, said that every sheet of iron m the roof of the hotel was so perished that it needed renewal. . His Honour: Surely, Mr. Blair, vou can’t claim the cost of a new root. Mr. Blair: We submit that we can. Sir. His Honour. Do you mean to say that the parties would take a lease if they knew that they would have to nut a new roof on ? There may be some authority on the point, but it seems to me to be unreasonable to sug gest that. . „ The first notice which Berryman had received had been on June 19. 19-3, said Mr. H. F. O’Leary, for the defence. On Junt 29 Berryman had been informed bv plaintiff’s solicitors that the' work would be carried out at a total cost of £438 Ils. At this stage the matter had come to him, and on his advice Berryman had instructed an architect to inspect the premises and make a report as to what work he considered necessary. Lated they had communicated with Staples and Co. on the subject, but they had chosen to go on with the work and now were asking for £490 The defendants said that unnecessary work had been carried out and that the position would have been very different had Staples been carrying out" the work themselves. They hnd been working with Messrs. Crump and Seager quite independently, and had been asking for a great many things. Defendant’s architect had estimated the cost of all the repairs recommended by Staples’s architects as £992: actually they had spent £BO2 and were now asking" for .£490. a total of. £1300. The computation of their liability had been only £l9O. , . . , . . .His Honour reserved his decision.