Damage to the reversion — Some misconceptions

s18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 is the best-known example of the idea of damage to the reversion. It expresses an attractive proposition — that a landlord cannot recover more than he has lost. That proposition applies in broad terms to all claims in dilapidations. The author explores 13 misconceptions about how this principle affects a landlord's claim once a (normally, commercial) 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. He says that 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. Four important cases are mentioned: Shortlands v Cargill; Mason v TotalFinaElf; Rainbow Estates v Tokenhold; and Jervis v Harris.