| 000 | 01201cab a2200193 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ##ABS67637 | ||
| 008 | 040331n2004 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u125683 | ||
| 100 | 1 | _aHumphreys, E. | |
| 245 | 0 | 0 | _aDilapidations: out of order |
| 260 | _c2004 | ||
| 490 | 0 |
_aEstates Gazette _v(0411) 13 March 2004, 133(1) |
|
| 520 | _aLooks 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. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | 2 | 4 | _aFLUOR DANIEL PROPERTIES LTD V SHORTLANDS INVESTMENTS LTD |
| 650 | 2 | 4 | _aMASON V TOTALFINAELF UK LTD |
| 690 | _aPROPERTY-LEASEHOLD PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-DILAPIDATIONS | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c74330 _d74330 |
||