The High Court recently made a ruling in MSA Properties Limited v The Drapery Northampton Ltd [2026] EWHC 1420 which clarifies a question frequently asked by UK landlords and tenants alike:
Can a landlord require a tenant to vacate premises in order to carry out repair works?
The court confirmed the answer to this to be ‘yes’, but only in limited and carefully justified circumstances. The case overall highlights the tension between a landlord’s repairing obligations and a tenant’s contractual right to quiet enjoyment.
This article looks at the ruling in the context of English and Welsh property law, and what landlords and tenants need to consider when facing disputes.
Background to the case
A dispute arose between a landlord and tenant in light of a structural failure within a building – the collapse of a loading bay ceiling due to seven rotten structural joists.
The case concerned a mixed‑use building, comprising commercial units on the ground floor level and residential flats above. The affected joists were located between the ground floor loading bay and two first-floor flats. The Defendant was the long leaseholder of the upper floors, holding a 999-year lease of 25 residential flats across the first to fourth floors.
MSA, as the freeholder, requested the tenant, the holder of a 999-year lease, vacate the property to enable repair works to be undertaken from above. This work would have involved the removal of bathrooms and floors.
The Claimant argued that:
- The works could be undertaken from below, avoiding the need for tenants to vacate.
- Requiring the flats to be vacated would breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment in the lease.
The matter proceeded to High Court.
The High Court’s ruling
The High Court rejected the tenant’s argument and sided with the landlord, reaffirming a key aspect of property law in England and Wales from Century Projects Limited v Almacantar (Centre Point) Limited 2014 which asserted:
A landlord’s right to repair and a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment must be balanced – neither automatically overrides the other.
The ruling also drew from aspects of Century Projects v Almacantar that:
- Landlords generally can choose how repairs are carried out
- This choice must be reasonable
- The choice must consider impact on tenant, practical alternatives and safety and risk factors
Even though repairs from below were technically possible, they were deemed not to be appropriate from a practical and safety point of view. This was based on the on the expert evidence of a highly experienced structural engineer who introduced a materially greater safety risk if the option to repair from below was taken.
The court accepted that works from below were “possible in a broad or theoretical sense” but rejected them because they introduced “materially greater risks” and were not consistent with risk‑avoidance principles.
On this basis, the court granted:
- Right of access to carry out structural repairs
- 6 weeks’ exclusive possession of the premises (less than the requested 10 weeks)
However:
- No right to exclusive possession for preliminary inspection was granted
This shows that even where justified, the courts will limit the duration of possession to what is reasonably necessary.
When is it lawful to require vacant possession?
The judgment sets out a fact-sensitive test.
A landlord may require a tenant to vacate where:
1. The works are genuinely necessary
- Here, at least six structural joists required replacement
- Localised repair was not sufficient
Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to keep the structure and exterior in repair.
2. The chosen method is reasonable
The landlord must:
- Act on professional advice
- Consider alternatives
- Balance risk, cost, and disruption
The court emphasised this is a margin of judgment for landlords in selecting how to carry out complex repair works, not a perfect optimisation exercise. The landlord is thus not required to choose the least disruptive option, only a reasonable one.
3. The works cannot be safely undertaken otherwise
The court placed significant weight on safety considerations, consistent with the principles underpinning the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, which require risks in construction work to be avoided or minimised at the design and planning stage.
In this case:
- Works from below were technically possible
- BUT carried greater safety risks and were not compliant with risk-avoidance principles
Therefore:
Works from above (requiring vacancy) were the only method that could reasonably be adopted.
4. The lease supports access
The lease included:
- A broad landlord right of entry for repair works
- An obligation on the tenant to permit access
However, this was subject to:
- Reasonable notice
- Minimising disturbance
This was critical.
Practical implications for landlords
- You may require tenants to vacate for major repair works but only when justified
- This would be based on expert evidence, considering alternative approaches and why those are ruled out
- You should document all decision making
- You should carefully consider the wording of the lease to allow for repair access which covers substantial works
Practical implications for tenants
- You cannot automatically refuse access for major repairs
- You can challenge unreasonable methods, excessive disruption or lack of evidence
- You may seek shorter access periods
- You may argue for alternative methods
- The wording of the lease is critical
Seeking legal advice
For those involved in a dispute as a tenant or landlord, Napthens’ specialist commercial property litigation team of solicitors is on hand to support. We will carefully review your situation in the context of the legal frameworks, case law and the wording of your lease.
For landlords and tenants considering a new lease, our commercial property team are expert in ensuring that you are protected and that your interests are reflected in your lease.
Get in touch today to get started.
FAQs
Yes — but only where the landlord’s chosen method of repair is reasonable, and the lease supports access.
Quiet enjoyment is a covenant often written into a lease giving the tenant the legal right to occupy the premises in peace without disturbance from the landlord, for the course of the lease.
No. Quiet enjoyment does not prevent repairs — it requires landlords to act reasonably and minimise disruption.
Not necessarily. The landlord must choose a reasonable method, which is not necessarily the least disruptive method.
David Bailey | Partner, Head of Litigation
David Bailey is a partner and heads up the litigation team, based in the firm's Preston and Liverpool offices.
Related Insights
Sign up for legal insights
Stay up to date with the latest alerts, training and event invitations.
