000			01434cab a2200205 4500
001			##ABS68042
008			040716n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u126816
100	1		_aBeckett, P.
245	0	2	_aA tolerable state of affairs
260			_c2004
490		0	_aEstates Gazette _v(0427) 3 July 2004, 126(1)
520			_aExamines dilapidations claims in the light of "Simmons and others v Dresden ([2004] EWHC 993 (TCC), [2004] All ER (D) 261 (May)). The tenants (S), who had been granted a full repairing lease, had not been able to complete a programme of repairs to the property by the date that the lease expired, when the landlord (D) sold the property. D claimed breaches of covenant by S but his claim was dismissed as he was unable to prove his loss, although S's repairs were found to be inadequate. D's position was weakened by the fact that the property had been sold at what both sides agreed was a good price and the valuation methods of "Shortlands Investments Ltd v Cargill plc" (ORB, WB3047-23) deemed not to be applicable. Concludes that the issues in dilapidations cases must be separated out for clarity's sake.
590			_aABS
650	2	4	_aSHORTLANDS INVESTMENTS LTD V CARGILL PLC
650	2	4	_aSIMMONS AND OTHERS V DRESDEN
650	2	4	_aFLUOR DANIEL PROPERTIES LTD V SHORTLANDS INVESTMENTS LTD
690			_aPROPERTY-LEASEHOLD PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-DILAPIDATIONS
942			_n0
999			_c74468 _d74468