Culworth Estates Ltd v The Society of Licensed Victuallers
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 29 EG 49-55(4)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: QBD 26 February 1990. Action by C for damages for breach of covenant by S in failing to leave premises in good repair on termination of lease. Premises were a warehouse used as a printing works. Lease contained a covenant to repair in common form. S accepted that the building was in a shocking state of repair and both parties accepted during the trial that the cost of repair was £175,000. Later the premises were sold in their dilapidated condition for £320,000 and resold again for a higher figure without any repairs being undertaken. S argued firstly that under Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 s18(1) structural alterations after termination of the tenancy would value the repairs worthless and that no value could be attributed for a good state of repair and the only approximate valuation would be a residual site valuation. According to C damage to the reversion was as great as the cost of the repairs. It was held that there was no evidence that S failed to discharge the burden of proof an| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS43075 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 40320-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
QBD 26 February 1990. Action by C for damages for breach of covenant by S in failing to leave premises in good repair on termination of lease. Premises were a warehouse used as a printing works. Lease contained a covenant to repair in common form. S accepted that the building was in a shocking state of repair and both parties accepted during the trial that the cost of repair was £175,000. Later the premises were sold in their dilapidated condition for £320,000 and resold again for a higher figure without any repairs being undertaken. S argued firstly that under Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 s18(1) structural alterations after termination of the tenancy would value the repairs worthless and that no value could be attributed for a good state of repair and the only approximate valuation would be a residual site valuation. According to C damage to the reversion was as great as the cost of the repairs. It was held that there was no evidence that S failed to discharge the burden of proof an