Repair and Condition Distinguished | The Ibis Hotel Cladding Case

Essendi UK Hotels 2 Ltd v London Property Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 1354 (TCC) is an important recent landlord and tenant case about dangerous cladding and the scope of a landlord’s repairing obligations. 

The facts

• Essendi (the tenant and operator of the Ibis Wembley hotel) discovered that the hotel was clad with combustible Category 3 ACM cladding, similar to that used on Grenfell Tower.
• The lease required the landlord to put and keep the building structure, exterior and cladding in good and substantial repair and condition and to undertake works required by legal obligations.
• The landlord, London Property Company, refused to replace the cladding, arguing that the lease did not require it to undertake such major works.
• The tenant closed the hotel and sued the landlord for specific performance.

The key issue

Did the landlord’s covenant to keep the building in “good and substantial repair and condition” require it to remove and replace the dangerous cladding, even though the cladding was not physically deteriorated? 

Decision

The court held yes.  It found that, although the cladding was not in disrepair, “good condition” is not tautologous with “good repair”.

It held that, in the post-Grenfell context, an obligation to put and keep a multi-storey building with sleeping accommodation in good condition requires the building to be made reasonably safe for its intended use from a fire safety perspective.  The obligation can arise even where the defect has not resulted in any physical deterioration or visible damage to the building.  

The landlord was also in breach of a covenant requiring compliance with statutory obligations.  The Building Safety Act 2022 does not apply to hotels but the landlord’s duties under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 required the dangerous cladding to be removed and replaced. 
The landlord was ordered to carry out the cladding replacement works, and it was left open for the tenant to pursue damages for closure of the hotel.

Why it matters

The case is significant because it suggests that:

• A landlord’s covenant to keep premises in good condition may extend beyond traditional “repair” and “disrepair” concepts.
• Fire safety defects can fall within such covenants even where there is no physical deterioration.

If you have any questions when it comes to Commercial Real Estate, contact our team today.