Lesley Hughes confirms why the courts won’t sanction the invention of a special purchaser
As landlords chase terminal dilapidations claims ever harder in times when redevelopment opportunities are scarce, tenants are increasingly turning to s 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 to try to cap their liabilities.
The Court of Appeal decision in Van Dal Footwear Ltd v Ryman Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1478, [2009] All ER (D) 41 (Dec) has left little doubt about what test the courts must apply when looking to cap damages arising from a breach of covenant to keep a property in repair. The case also clarifies the position with respect to the effect on value of reversionary leases. While the landlord’s reversionary interest must by valued subject to binding sub-tenancies, any reversionary lease (whenever and with whoever granted) must be ignored
Case history
Ryman occupied a 17th-century listed building under a lease, the term of which had expired. It continued to occupy the premises under a series of tenancies at will, each of which kept alive
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
