The court considered the measure of damages for a tenant’s failure to comply with his covenant to repair where the premises did have redevelopment potential but a purchaser would still pay more if the premises were in a good state of repair.
Neuberger J said: ‘In a case where the landlord has carried out the works or clearly intends to carry out the works then the cost of the works is, or at the very least can be, prima facie evidence of the diminution in value. However in a case where the landlord has not carried out the works, and there is no evidence that he intends to carry them out, then the cost of the works is of no assistance. One cannot say that a costed schedule of dilapidations of itself, in the absence of any other evidence, constitutes even prima facie evidence of the diminution in the value of the reversion, let alone that there is any sort of prima face evidence of the actual diminution.’
Judges:
Neuberger J
Citations:
[2000] 1 EGLR 128
Statutes:
Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 18(1)
Cited by:
Cited – Latimer and Another v Carney and others CA 27-Oct-2006
The landlords appealed disissal of their request for relief against their tenants for non-repair of the premises. The judge had held that the landlord had not provided appropriate evidence of the damage and costs of repair which it claimed.
Cited – Ravengate Estates Ltd v Horizon Housing Group Ltd and others CA 19-Dec-2007
The landlord sought damages at the end of the lease for the tenant’s alleged breach of his repairing obligations. It was disputed as to whether the roof space formed part of the demise, and the tenant argued that the works were unnecessary since the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.245775