Dilapidations: out of order
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0411) 13 March 2004, 133(1)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Summary: Looks at dilapidations case law when landlords are entitled to replace failing equipment. "Fluor Daniel Properties Ltd v Shortlands Investments Ltd" (ChD, [2001] 2 EGLR 103), emphasised that equipment needs to be in a state of actual disrepair before a landlord becomes entitled to repair or replace it. The cost can be recovered via the service charge. In "Mason v Totalfinaelf UK Ltd" (2003] EWHC 1604(Ch), [2003] 3 EGLR 91), a dilapidations decision may impact on the law relating to service charges. Suggests a landlord may not be encouraged to plan ahead to keep equipment operational and to wait for it to totally break down.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS67637 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 125683-1001 |
Looks at dilapidations case law when landlords are entitled to replace failing equipment. "Fluor Daniel Properties Ltd v Shortlands Investments Ltd" (ChD, [2001] 2 EGLR 103), emphasised that equipment needs to be in a state of actual disrepair before a landlord becomes entitled to repair or replace it. The cost can be recovered via the service charge. In "Mason v Totalfinaelf UK Ltd" (2003] EWHC 1604(Ch), [2003] 3 EGLR 91), a dilapidations decision may impact on the law relating to service charges. Suggests a landlord may not be encouraged to plan ahead to keep equipment operational and to wait for it to totally break down.