Grand v Gill: is internal plaster part of a landlord’s repairing duty?

What happened?

Tanya Grand rented a top-floor flat from Param Gill.

The flat suffered serious damp and mould. There was also water ingress associated with defects in the roof and guttering, and the heating system performed poorly for substantial periods.

The trial judge accepted that there had been serious problems but treated much of the damp and mould as resulting from the design and ventilation of the property.

Relying on Quick v Taff-Ely, the judge concluded that those underlying design problems were not themselves actionable disrepair.

One further issue became decisive on appeal: what about damage to the internal plasterwork?

The trial judge had treated the plaster largely as decorative.

The Court of Appeal had to determine whether plaster on the walls and ceilings was actually part of the structure which the landlord had covenanted to keep in repair.

What did the court decide?

The Court of Appeal held that the plaster was part of the structure.

It was therefore capable of falling within the landlord’s repairing obligation.

That meant a distinction had to be drawn between:

• the underlying design or condensation problem, which might fall outside the traditional repairing covenant under Quick; and
• physical deterioration of structural plaster, which could itself constitute disrepair.

This was important because earlier authority in Irvine’s Estate v Moran had treated plaster differently.

The Court of Appeal departed from Irvine’s Estate on that plaster point.

The Court of Appeal’s conclusion that plasterwork formed part of the structure is also reflected in the contemporary Weekly Law Reports report.

What rule does this case establish?

For Section 11 purposes, internal plaster attached to walls or ceilings can form part of the structure of the dwelling.

That means damaged plaster should not automatically be dismissed as mere decoration.

But the case also preserves an important analytical distinction.

Suppose condensation is caused primarily by an inherent design defect. Under Quick, the landlord’s repairing covenant may not itself require redesign of the building.

If that continuing condition causes plaster to deteriorate, however, the damaged plaster can present a separate repairing issue.

So the correct analysis is not simply: “Is there damp?” It may require separating:

• the cause of the damp;
• the physical components that have deteriorated;
• which of those components fall within Section 11;
• and which other duties, including fitness for human habitation, may apply.

Why does this matter to tenants?

Because descriptions such as “only cosmetic” or “just plaster” can conceal a legally important distinction.

Cracking, blown plaster, deteriorated ceiling plaster or plaster damaged by persistent water penetration may form part of the repairing case.

That does not mean every stain, flake of paint or decorative blemish is automatically structural disrepair.

The condition and extent of the actual plaster matter.

Grand v Gill is especially useful where a landlord accepts that damp exists but says the only resulting damage is decorative.

The case shows why photographs, surveys and a clear description of whether the plaster itself has cracked, blown, detached or otherwise deteriorated can matter. Our guide to structural and plaster defects covers what to record.

Primary source

Grand v Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 554; [2011] 1 WLR 2253, Court of Appeal, 19 May 2011.