000			01402cab a2200229 4500
001			##ABS68844
008			050329n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129196
100	1		_aBeckett, P.
245	0	0	_aDamage to the reversion _bsome misconceptions
260			_c2005
490		0	_aJournal of Building Appraisal _v1(1) February 2005, 70-80(11)
520			_aExplores 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].
590			_aABS
650	2	4	_aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1927 S18(1)
650	2	4	_aSHORTLANDS INVESTMENTS LTD V CARGILL PLC
650	2	4	_aMASON V TOTALFINAELF UK LTD
650	2	4	_aRAINBOW ESTATES LTD V TOKENHOLD LTD
650	2	4	_aJERVIS V HARRIS
690			_aPROPERTY-LEASEHOLD PROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT-DILAPIDATIONS
942			_n0
999			_c74994 _d74994