WAR DAMAGE

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 71, 25 March 1939, Page 11

WAR DAMAGE

REPAIR OF BUILDINGS

LIABILITY OF COVENANTORS

REPORT ISSUED

The committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Maugham, to consider the legal rights and liabilities of persons interested in buildings > which may be damaged or destroyed as a consequence of hostilities, recently issued its report. The first and most important recommendation of the committee is that a covenantor, whether lessor or lessee, should be relieved by statute from his obligation, express or implied, to repair war damage, states the ■ Daily Telegraph." , , . Similar relief should be granted to persons who, by reason of a guarantee or otherwise, are subject to the same obligations. . . The committee points out that m the last war the Government instituted a scheme under which insurance against war damage could be effected. "We therefore think it is fair to assume" the committee states, that as a general rule, if the question of ' damage by war action entered at all into the consideration of the parties, the covenantor undertook the liability for repairing such damage on the assumption that facilities for insuring against it would be available to him. "The insurance companies have, however, announced that, having regard to the impossibility of forecasting with any degree of accuracy the extent of damage which may be caused by hostile aircraft, they are not prepared'to promote, or to be associated with, any scheme for insurance against war risks. "Nor, we understand, will the Government, for the same reasons, find it feasible to promote such a scheme alone." BELIEF IN ALL CASES. The committee considers that the relief it recommends should be given in all cases, even where there is an express obligation to repair war damage. While relieving the lessee of the obligation to repair, the committee also recommends that wheijever war damage has occurred a lessee should be bound forthwith to give notice of the occurrence of the damage to the lessor, who should have the right to enter the -premises to inspect them and to execute; if he -thinks fit, any repairs, whether temporary or permanent. Where premises are damaged but still remain fit for habitation, the committee makes no further recommenda- • tion as regards full payment of the rent agreed oh in the lease. Where, however, a building is rendered unfit for* human habitation the committee doesj not think it reasonable that the lease should remain in force, "unless one of the parties is willing to undertake, - as a voluntary act, to repair the premises to such extent as may render them fit." Where premises have been rendered uninhabitable, the lessee, it is suggested, should tiave the option of retain--.ing or disclaiming his lease. To pro- , tect the lessor, however, in the case of lessees who take a long time to make up their minds, it is suggested that the lessor be empowered to take ' rr th& initiative in calling on the lessee :'; r for a decision. r As to' the question whether a lessee should be obliged to pay rent for premises while they are unfit, the committee thinks that, as a general rule, the rent should be suspended. If part of '' the premises can be used beneficially, the Court should have power to assess a rent to be paid by the lessee. * COURT'S SANCTION. In the case of blocks of houses, flats, offices, shops, and workrooms occupied by sub-tenants under a head lease, the committee proposes that a disclaiming lessee should be compelled to inform under-lessees of his notice of disclaimer. Where all the parties concerned are not in agreement, a disclaimer would not be effective unless sanctioned by the Court. • With regard to ground rents, the report says: "In our view, a lessee at a ground rent should, save in exceptional cases, be treated rather as part-owner of the, property than as the lessee of property belonging to another." A lessee at ground rent should enjoy the general relief from liability to repair war damage, but subject to this exception should, in the normal case, continue subject to all obligations as to rent and otherwise laid down in the lease. The committee assumes that during a war there would be in force Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts on lines similar to those passed during the last war. Those Acts provided that: The enforcement of the payment or recovery of a sum of money due under a contract made before the beginning of the war and of rent of less -than £50 per annum was prohibited except by leave of the Court, and Contracts could be suspended, annulled, or amended where, owing to any restriction or direction imposed by or under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, or owing to the acquisition or use of property by or on behalf of the Crown for the purpose of the war, any term of the contract could not be enforced without serious hardship. Mining leases and agricultural holdings, it is proposed, should be excluded from the scheme of disclaimer and retainer, though in the case of agricultural holdings it is suggested that the Court should be empowered to reduce the rent. Relief from obligation to repair war damage would apply in both cases. The report then deals with the position of mortgagors. "We are of opinion" it says, : "that the mortgagor should be relieved of his obligation to make good war damage and that failure to make good war damage should-not cause any acceleration of the date of payment of principal or make the mortgage or debentures enforceable. "The mortgagor will still remain liable under his personal obligation to repay the principal moneys and the question whether there should be any relief from that liability raises an entirely different point. "That question can, we think, only be usefully considered at a time when the extent of the war damage to mortgaged property generally is known and in the light of the general economic position obtaining after a war has ended." *■