Major works versus quiet enjoyment: Where do courts draw the line?

This blog was co-authored by Peter Barnard and Amelia Sharples.

Understanding the dispute in MSA Properties v Drapery Northampton

For landlords, carrying out major works on a building can often be a difficult balancing exercise. On the one hand, landlords have obligations to repair, maintain and preserve the building. On the other hand, tenants are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property. The question frequently arises: can a landlord require a tenant to vacate their flat to carry out essential works? The recent High Court decision in MSA Properties Ltd v Drapery Northampton Ltd (2026) provides guidance on how the courts will approach the issue.

The case concerned two residential flats that required substantial structural repairs, including the replacement of defective joists. To complete the works safely and efficiently, the freeholder sought exclusive possession of the flat for ten weeks. The tenant argued that this was an unreasonable interference with its right to quiet enjoyment and that a landlord should only be entitled to require a tenant to vacate if there was no other possible method of carrying out the repairs. The High Court rejected the argument. Instead, it held that the correct test is whether the landlord’s chosen method of repair is reasonable, not whether it is the only available option. Although the court reduced the period of exclusive possession from ten to six weeks, it accepted that temporary possession was justified to enable the structural works to be completed.

Can a landlord require a tenant to vacate for essential repairs?

Before embarking on major works, landlords should review the lease carefully to identify any rights of access and repairing obligations. They should also obtain detailed reports from surveyors, structural engineers or contractors examining why the proposed method of repair is necessary and whether occupation during those works would be unsafe or impracticable. Early engagement with tenants is equally important. Providing clear information about the scope of the works, the anticipated duration and the reasons why temporary access or, in exceptional circumstances, temporary possession is required can often avoid disputes. Where agreement cannot be reached, the court will expect landlords to demonstrate that the proposed works and period of disruption are both reasonable.

Key takeaways

The key takeaway from MSA Properties Ltd v The Drapery Northampton Ltd is that landlords are not required to choose the least disruptive method of repair simply to preserve a tenant’s uninterrupted occupation. The legal question is one of unreasonableness. If the proposed works are necessary and the chosen method is justified by the evidence and any interference with the tenant’s occupation is proportionate, the courts are prepared to authorise temporary possession where required. For landlords facing significant structural repairs, the decisions provide reassurance that the covenant for quiet enjoyment does not stand in the way of essential maintenance, but it does require landlords to act fairly, reasonably and with proper justification.