Hello and thanks for using Just Answer.
I am Al and am happy to assist you with your enquiry.
Here is an extract of the facts surrounding the case-
Scottish Mutual Assurance v. Jardine. The case concerned a short-term commercial lease which provided for the repair of the roof by the landlord with the ability to recover any costs incurred from the tenant through the service charge. Extensive repairs were carried out towards the end of the lease.The tenant argued that the expenditure was not reasonably and properly incurred bearing in mind that the landlord could have proceeded with a short-term solution of repairing the roof rather than a long-term solution of extensive roofing works. It was the Court's view that the landlord was influenced in favor of the latter course by the fact that the lease was coming to an end and a new tenant had been found for the premises who was not prepared to contribute towards the cost of repairing the roof.Although the decision is a first-instance decision, its implications are of concern for landlords of multi-let buildings where there are either short leases or leases nearing the end of their term and major works are planned. In such cases, notwithstanding that the leases contain full service charge provisions, the obligation to act reasonably should be carefully considered in apportioning the costs between the tenants of the building.
I hope this assists and answers your questio
No. The case I recall was about replacing the whole building air conditioning system in a multi occupied office building. the landlord was Scottish Mutual or a similar scots insurance company .Any thoughts?
Fluor Daniel Properties Ltd v Shortlands Investments Ltd  2 EGLR 103, a case which demonstrates that the level of repair a landlord can undertake may be reduced on a lease approaching expiry. The Court concluded: "In short the works- ie the standard to be adopted- must be such as the tenants, given the length of their leases, could fairly be expected to pay for," and that the Landlord "cannot, because he has an interest in the matter, overlook the limited interest of the tenants who are having to pay by carrying out works which are calculated to serve an interest extending beyond that of the tenants". The landlord must bear the additional cost himself. In this case, air conditioning equipment had reached the end of its expected lifespan, but was not actually in disrepair such that the tenants could not be asked to fund its renewal. Nonetheless, one should always bear in mind that each case will specifically turn on the facts, and in particular, the precise wording of the relevant provisions in the lease.