@sacrebleurgh @nearlylegal @HomeownersLandQ I think there may be a difference between retro-fitted cladding and cladding present from inception. The fitting of the cladding is, arguably, actionable as nuisance, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, & derogation from grant. Test is objective & doesn't depend on... 1/
@sacrebleurgh @nearlylegal @HomeownersLandQ ...standards prevailing at the time, unlike negligence. Once a cause of action exists there is the potential for injunctive relief/damages. Whether injunction would extend to compelling obtaining of an EWS1 is interesting but impact damages might indirectly compel. The ... 2/
@sacrebleurgh @nearlylegal @HomeownersLandQ … problem with cladding there from the start (& ? for buyers who bought post-retro-fit) is that with property pre-existing defects (subject to any express warranties) are a matter for the buyer to detect. 3/3
@sacrebleurgh @nearlylegal @HomeownersLandQ Rider to bit re buyers of retrofit: Innerspaces Self Storage v Harding [2014] EWCA Civ 46: Judge wrong to reject tenant's claim on basis that tenant had known about rubble (the breach in that case) when assigned lease. Ambit of covenant to be construed at the date of grant.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
