When drafting a lease it is often so easy to take a precedent out and get drafting without thinking about the important issues such as repair. A recent case Gavin and Another v Community Housing Association Limited [2013] EWCA CIV580 ('Gavin') reminded me how important it is to consider who is repairing the different parts of any premises. From a landlord and a tenant's point of view it is important to have certainty and to make sure that someone is carrying out repairs to the whole building, even if the tenant is only occupying part of the building.

In Gavin, the Court of Appeal had to consider whether a term should be implied into a lease requiring the landlord to repair the retained parts of the premises. Most leases are drafted on the basis that all parts of the building are caught by a repairing obligation. In some cases this will be all down to the tenant, in other cases the tenant will repair internally and the landlord will maintain the structure and collect payment for this through a service charge provision. I have known tenants who have said I am only interested in my unit and I do not care what the landlord does with his premises, but it is very rare that the landlord's retained premises do not impact either directly or indirectly on the tenant's premises.

In this case the tenant had a lease of ground floor and basement commercial premises. The demise to the tenant was an internal demise, with the landlord retaining the structure including the soil pipes on the rear of the building serving the residential flats above the commercial unit.

There was no express obligation on the part of the landlord to repair the retained part of the premises, although the landlord did covenant to insure the retained parts and to lay out the insurance monies to repair the damage. There was also a cesser of rent clause in the event of damage to the premises, which rendered them unfit for occupation and use.