Damage to the reversion some misconceptions
Series: Journal of Building Appraisal ; 1(1) February 2005, 70-80(11)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Explores 13 misconceptions about how the principle of reversion affects a landlord's claim once a lease has expired. The linkage of the valuation process to the schedule of dilapidations is considered, as is the analytical nature of the exercise required. Argues the margin of error has no place in a calculation of damage to the reversion and that justification is required if the damage to the reversion appears to be less than the cost of works. Looks at "Shortlands v Cargill" ([1995] 1 EGLR 51), "Mason v Totalfinaelf" ([2003] EWHC 1604 (Ch), [2003] 3 EGLR 91), "Rainbow Estates v Tokenhold" (ChD, Abs58922) and "Jervis v Harris" (CA, Abs54372). [Taken from journal abstract].| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS68844 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 129196-1001 |
Explores 13 misconceptions about how the principle of reversion affects a landlord's claim once a lease has expired. The linkage of the valuation process to the schedule of dilapidations is considered, as is the analytical nature of the exercise required. Argues the margin of error has no place in a calculation of damage to the reversion and that justification is required if the damage to the reversion appears to be less than the cost of works. Looks at "Shortlands v Cargill" ([1995] 1 EGLR 51), "Mason v Totalfinaelf" ([2003] EWHC 1604 (Ch), [2003] 3 EGLR 91), "Rainbow Estates v Tokenhold" (ChD, Abs58922) and "Jervis v Harris" (CA, Abs54372). [Taken from journal abstract].