The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering payment of over $4.2 million arising from breach of repair and maintenance obligations under a commercial lease for hotel and restaurant premises.
They argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the lease as imposing an enhanced repair standard and that there was insufficient evidence establishing the condition of the premises at the start of the lease.
The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, holding that the lease language and commercial context supported the trial judge’s interpretation.
The court further held that evidence including contractual representations, inspection reports, and witness testimony provided a sufficient basis to compare the condition of the premises over time.
The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.
