Canterbury & Kent

Craigard v Westbury Homes [2026] EWHC 2453 (TCC): A Dartford Dilapidations Claim Cut From £1.6m to £648,141 and the Expert Evidence Lessons for Kent Landlords and Tenants (November 2026)

Get a Fixed-Fee QuoteCall 0204 579 8270

A landlord claimed more than £1.6m. The Technology and Construction Court awarded £648,141.47. The gap of roughly 60% in Craigard (Dartford) Ltd v Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd was not about whether the tenant had breached its lease; the judge found the failure to maintain the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning system was deliberate. The gap came from how the dilapidations claim expert evidence was built, presented and tested [1][2].

For landlords and tenants of offices and industrial units across Kent, from Dartford and Gravesend to Maidstone, Ashford and Canterbury, the judgment of HHJ Keyser KC on 29 September 2026 is the most important dilapidations decision of the year.

Key Takeaways

• Craigard (Dartford) Ltd v Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd and another, [2026] EWHC 2453 (TCC), was decided by HHJ Keyser KC on 29 September 2026 [1][2].
• The claim pleaded at over £1.6m was reduced to £648,141.47, with interest and costs to follow [1].
• The HVAC system was out of repair, but damages were assessed on the cost of repair (£163,504, from the defendants’ expert), not the £566,089.15 replacement the landlord installed [1].
• The judge was unimpressed by the claimants’ engineering expert, found a project manager’s “contemporaneous” report to be a later reconstruction, and treated the dilapidations report as the most reliable evidence [1].
• A landlord’s intention to refurbish does not extinguish the common law claim, but consequential losses that would have been incurred anyway are not recoverable [1][2].

The facts behind the dilapidations claim

The property was a two-storey office building in Dartford, bought by the claimants for £3.1m in 2021. The lease expired in July 2023. The first defendant was the tenant and the second its surety [1].

After expiry the claimants installed a new VRF and heat-recovery ventilation system costing £566,089.15 as part of a wider refurbishment. Their claim covered remedial works, lost rent and professional fees [1][2].

The court found the HVAC system was out of repair at expiry. The judge held the defendants’ failure to maintain it was deliberate and described a witness’s claim that the system worked satisfactorily as “plainly false” [1].

Repair, not replacement: the central finding

The decisive point was the measure of loss. A tenant may perform its repairing covenant in the least onerous way that achieves compliance. If a reasonable specialist could have recommended repair rather than replacement, damages are assessed on repair [1][2].

The judge accepted that the landlord had, in reality, decided to replace the system. He rejected the argument that this superseded the repair claim, but he also declined to award replacement cost. The repair figure adopted was £163,504, taken from the defendants’ engineering expert [1].

Item	Claimed	Awarded
Total claim	more than £1.6m	£648,141.47
HVAC	£566,089.15 replacement	£163,504 repair
Ground-floor loss of rent	£44,130.38	nil (would have been incurred anyway)
Professional and legal fees	£61,491	recoverable under the lease indemnity

Section 18(1) Landlord and Tenant Act 1927

The defendants argued that the statutory cap in section 18(1) extinguished the claim because the landlord intended to refurbish regardless. HHJ Keyser KC held that the common law does not extinguish damages because of a landlord’s intentions, citing Marquess of Salisbury v Gilmore and Henderson v Thorn, and described the defendants’ argument as “contrary to well established law” [1]. The second limb of section 18(1), concerning demolition and structural alterations, was agreed not to apply.

The cap was treated as a separate valuation exercise. The judge preferred the claimants’ valuer’s view that a hypothetical purchaser would be content with a functioning HVAC system, but followed the defendants’ valuer’s general shortcut method. Because the claimants’ valuation assumed their own wider scope of works, the figures had to be revisited [1].

Consequential loss of rent was refused because it would have been incurred under the refurbishment in any event [1][2].

The dilapidations claim expert evidence: what the judge made of it

This is where the case earns its place in every Kent surveyor’s reading list.

The claimants’ engineering expert

The judge was not impressed. The expert relied on unknowns to argue that repair was unfeasible, an approach the judge said risked reversing the burden of proof. It is for the landlord to prove that the works claimed were necessary, not for the tenant to prove they were not [1].

The defendants’ engineering expert

His repair figure of £163,504 was adopted. A costed, realistic repair scheme carried the day [1].

The dilapidations report

The judge described the dilapidations report as the most reliable evidence. It was costly and intrusive and itemised the repair works. The court noted, though, that its wording had been revised at the claimants’ surveyor’s request, replacing “end of economic life” with “not in repair” [1]. Changes of that kind are visible on disclosure and invite questions.

The project manager’s report

Presented as a contemporaneous record, it was found to be a later reconstruction [1]. Nothing damages a party’s credibility faster.

The valuers

Each valuer’s method was partly accepted and partly rejected, and the claimants’ figures had to be reworked because they assumed the landlord’s own scope rather than the minimum works required to comply with the lease [1].

Ian Morgan of Pinsent Masons advised landlords to obtain clear, contemporaneous evidence of the minimum works needed at lease expiry and to have expert evidence address those minimum works separately from any wider refurbishment specification [2].

Lessons for Kent landlords

1. Record condition at expiry. A photographic schedule and an inspection on or immediately after the termination date are the cheapest evidence in the case.
2. Separate the minimum from the ambition. A landlord may refurbish however it likes, but the claim is for what the tenant should have done, costed at repair where repair would do.
3. Instruct experts who will say no. An engineering expert who tests whether repair was feasible is more persuasive than one who assumes it was not.
4. Never retro-fit documents. Reports should be dated when made. A reconstruction presented as contemporaneous will be found out.
5. Follow the Dilapidations Protocol. The pre-action protocol requires a schedule of dilapidations, a quantified demand and the surveyor’s endorsement that the works and costs are reasonable.

Lessons for Kent tenants

• Maintain the plant and keep the service records. A deliberate failure to maintain colours the court’s view of every other issue.
• Obtain an independent building surveyor’s review of the landlord’s schedule and a specialist engineer’s repair-based costing before responding.
• Consider the section 18(1) valuation early, but do not expect a refurbishment plan on the landlord’s side to wipe out the claim.
• Surety companies should engage, since the judgment was against the tenant and its surety together.

Expert witness duties in dilapidations cases

Building surveyors, engineers and valuers who give evidence in the TCC are bound by CPR Part 35 and Practice Direction 35: an overriding duty to the court, a statement of truth, and a clear statement of the instructions and the facts relied on. The RICS guidance on dilapidations in England and Wales expects schedules to be reasonable and endorsed.

From 30 November 2026 the RICS professional standard Surveyors acting as expert witnesses, 5th edition, adds disclosure of AI use, disclosure of regular reliance on one instructing party, and fuller statements of assumptions and alternative conclusions [3]. Had the claimants’ experts in Craigard set out the repair alternative and explained why they rejected it, the outcome on credibility might have been different.

Frequently asked questions

Can a landlord claim the cost of a new HVAC system if the old one was out of repair?

Only if replacement was the only reasonable way to comply with the covenant. If a reasonable specialist could have recommended repair, damages are assessed on repair, as in Craigard v Westbury Homes [1].

Does a landlord’s plan to refurbish defeat a dilapidations claim?

No. The judge held that the common law claim is not extinguished by the landlord’s intentions, although consequential losses that would have arisen anyway are not recoverable [1][2].

What was awarded in Craigard v Westbury Homes?

£648,141.47 against a claim of more than £1.6m, with interest and costs to be determined [1].

What is the role of the surveyor’s endorsement?

Under the Dilapidations Protocol the landlord’s surveyor endorses the schedule to confirm the works and costs are, in the surveyor’s opinion, reasonable. It is a professional statement that will be tested if the case is litigated.

Conclusion

Craigard v Westbury Homes shows that winning on breach is not the same as winning on quantum. The tenant’s deliberate neglect of the HVAC system was proved, yet the landlord recovered less than half of what it claimed because its expert evidence argued for the landlord’s own refurbishment rather than the minimum works the lease required, and because one of its documents was not what it claimed to be.

For Kent landlords and tenants approaching lease expiry, the next steps are straightforward: record condition at the termination date, instruct a chartered building surveyor to prepare or review a protocol-compliant schedule, obtain a repair-based engineering costing before arguing for replacement, and make sure every expert instructed works to CPR Part 35 and the incoming RICS 5th edition standard. Good evidence, honestly dated, decides dilapidations claims.

References

1. Craigard V Westbury Homes Dilapidations Award Cut to 648141 After Landlord Fails to Prove Hvac Replacement Was Necessary. solicitorsjournal.com.
2. High Court Clarifies Limits of Dilapidations Claims Where Landlords Plan Sustainability Upgrades. pinsentmasons.com.
3. Surveyors Acting as Expert Witnesses. rics.org.