A review of the differences in dilapidations between Scotland and England has just been published by TFT. Produced by Neil Wotherspoon, who heads up TFT’s Edinburgh office, it provides an outline of the key differences and summarises some recent developments.
As the construction market awakens and legacy issues emerge, a cocktail of rising costs, material and labour shortages is threatening to turn the recovery into a hangover. TFT Cost Consultancy’s new White Paper looks at the issues and provides an outline of the cost and market drivers.
In the prevailing economic climate, it is essential that parties involved with a break clause are suitably prepared. Failure to observe clearly defined conditions can invalidate the break and lead to costly errors. TFT’s new white paper – ‘Exercising lease break options’ – studies the options, identifies potential problem areas and suggests compliant actions.
UK Dilapidations claims outside of England and Wales can be a minefield for the unwary. Dealing with dilapidations claims on a nationwide basis calls for a much broader understanding.
TFT’s new white paper: ‘How Dilapidations differ across the UK – an outline of the regional variations’ addresses the differing obligations and terminology applicable in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Channel Isles.
A good example is the very recent Jersey Sports Stadium v Barclay Private Clients (2013) case passed in the Jersey Royal Court which saw the court considering the cost of works and the diminution in value and preferring the guidance given in Ruxley v Forsyth (1996) over that in Joyner v Weeks. This is an essential piece for anyone involved with commercial leases outside England or Wales.
The PLA Dilapidations Protocol sets out to avoid litigation and yet three cases have recently come to court. They all test established dilapidations principles and their outcome will interest anyone involved in this area.
We have produced a new TFT White Paper on the first of these, the Hammersmatch Properties v St Gobain case, which is highly interesting as it reiterates the appropriate measures and remedies for disrepair whilst focusing on the need for robust valuation advice.
The Sunlife Europe Properties Ltd vs. Tiger Aspect Holdings Ltd (2013) dilapidations claim has recently come to court and the outcome provides a useful reminder of the principles to be applied when setting a tenants’ liability for dilapidations at the end of the lease. It also challenges previous dilapidations judgements such as Joyner v. Weeks and provides valuable lessons on long-standing dilapidations principles. We have prepared a White Paper on the Sunlife v. Tiger case.
Following on the heels of recent dilapidations claims which have come to court, this case, Twinmar Holdings Ltd v Klarius UK Ltd, provides useful guidance when claiming damages for terminal dilapidations and serves as a reminder that disrepair cannot always be pre-determined by obvious failure.
On 1 January 2012 the Dilapidations Protocol was adopted as a formal pre-action protocol under the Civil Procedure Rules. From this date onwards all dilapidations surveyors must adhere to its principles and requirements, and a failure to do so will result in cost sanctions.
In 2008, the claimants, PGF, were the landlord of a six-storey office building in Lime Street in the City of London. The building was let to Royal & Sun Alliance (the first defendant) under a 35 year lease until 24 June 2008 and, in turn, sub-let to London & Edinburgh Insurance (the second defendant) on a sub-lease expiring four days before the expiry of the head lease.
Back