Dilapidations Case Law: Ruxley vs Forsyth

Dilapidations Case Law : Ruxley vs Forsyth - this is not strictly a dilapidations case. However it is widely regarded as a leading authority on how damages should be assessed in building and property disputes.

For property professionals and surveyors dealing with dilapidations claims, the case offers invaluable guidance on the principle of proportionality and the difference between reinstatement costs and actual loss suffered.

Case Background

The dispute in Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth centred around the construction of a private swimming pool in Mr. Forsyth’s garden in Kent. The contract specified that the pool should have a maximum depth of 7 feet 6 inches in the diving area.

Upon completion, however, the actual depth at the critical diving point was only 6 feet—significantly shallower than agreed. While the pool was still usable and safe for diving, the shortfall in depth was seen as a breach of contract.

Mr. Forsyth sought damages based on the cost of rebuilding the pool to the correct depth, which was estimated at £21,560.

Ruxley Electronics argued that this cost was unreasonable given that the defect had no material impact on the pool’s functionality or its market value.

The court had to determine whether Forsyth should receive the full cost of rectification or a lesser amount.

The Legal Issue

At the heart of the case was the appropriate measure of damages.

Should Forsyth receive the full cost of rebuilding the pool even though the defect did not significantly affect its use or value?

Or should the award be limited to a smaller sum representing the actual inconvenience or “loss of amenity”?

The principle debated was how to put a claimant in the position they would have been in had the contract been properly performed—while also ensuring that damages are not disproportionate to the breach.

Judgment and Reasoning

The House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) ultimately held that awarding the full cost of reinstatement was disproportionate.

Although Forsyth did not get exactly what he had contracted for, the difference in performance was minor in practical terms. The pool was safe for diving, and no decrease in value could be demonstrated.

Instead of the full £21,560, the court awarded Forsyth a more modest sum of £2,500 for “loss of amenity”. An award recognising the personal disappointment and loss of enjoyment resulting from the defect.

Lord Bridge summarised the position by explaining that damages should not be awarded in a manner that is unreasonable or out of proportion to the benefit they provide. The aim is to fairly compensate, not to confer a windfall.

Why This Case Matters in Dilapidations

While this case did not arise directly from a landlord-tenant dilapidations dispute, it has become a cornerstone reference for assessing damages in those contexts.

Dilapidations claims often involve a landlord seeking the cost of reinstating premises to their original condition under the lease terms.

However, Ruxley v Forsyth reminds us that:

Just because a contractual breach occurs does not automatically entitle the claimant to the full cost of repair or reinstatement.

The court will weigh the proportionality of the claim—especially where the breach causes minimal practical or financial harm.

Where reinstatement costs are excessive relative to the actual impact, a court may award a lower figure, such as for diminution in value or loss of amenity.

This approach is critical when dealing with claims under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 or the Dilapidations Protocol.

It influences how surveyors assess Section 18(1) caps and what is considered “reasonable” in a Schedule of Dilapidations.

Dilapidations Case Law: Ruxley vs Forsyth - Comparisons and Wider Application

Other cases have echoed the principles laid down in Ruxley. For instance:

Radford v De Froberville [1977] – Where a brick wall was not built as agreed, the court awarded full reinstatement cost because the wall served a specific, non-financial purpose.

C.R. Taylor v Hepworths Ltd [1977] – Reinstatement was refused where there was no real loss and the cost of rebuilding was unreasonable.

The key difference is whether the feature or repair holds a specific value for the claimant beyond market price. If so, damages may reflect that interest. If not, the court tends to prefer practical, proportionate remedies.

Modern Implications for Surveyors and Legal Advisors

For those advising clients on dilapidations—whether landlords or tenants—Ruxley v Forsyth provides a reminder to:

Consider both reinstatement cost and the diminution in value when assessing claims.

Gather evidence to demonstrate any actual financial impact or specific use value of the item in question.

Balance client expectations against the likely judicial approach to reasonableness and proportionality.

Surveyors preparing terminal schedules should be wary of over-inflated claims that may not stand up in court. Likewise, tenants disputing such claims can use this case to argue for more reasonable, proportionate settlements.

Key Takeaway

When repair costs are disproportionate to the benefit gained, courts may award a lesser sum reflecting loss of amenity or value rather than full reinstatement costs.

The ruling in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth highlights the importance of proportionality, practical impact, and reasonableness in property and dilapidations disputes.

Dilapidations Case Law: Ruxley vs Forsyth - Conclusion

Ruxley v Forsyth remains a cornerstone case in English contract law and continues to influence how damages are assessed in building, property, and dilapidations claims. Its nuanced approach encourages fairness—ensuring claimants are compensated, but not at the expense of disproportionate awards.

For surveyors and legal advisors alike, it reinforces the need for careful, evidence-based assessments when evaluating breach-related losses.

For more expert insights into Dilapidations Case Law: Ruxley vs Forsyth and other pivotal cases, follow our blog or contact our specialist team for advice tailored to your property needs.

Related Resources

Dilapidations Case Law: Shortlands vs Cargill

Dilapidations Glossary of Key Terms

Understanding Section 18(1) and Diminution Valuations

Supersession in Dilapidations: What It Means for Landlords and Tenants

Contact

Need advice on dilapidations claims? At Anstey Horne, our experienced team of surveyors and legal consultants can guide you through every step—from early negotiations to expert witness representation. Get in touch today to learn how we can help.

Our expert team have extensive experience of dealing with all dilapidations matters. We act for both landlords and tenants, ensuring a global approach to the dilapidations process.

Also see our recent article on Dilapidations Tax Relief.

We assist commercial landlords and tenants on all aspects of lease obligations, repair and dilapidations.

We provide specialist surveys, new lease schedules of condition and general dilapidations advice.

For any help or advice on repair obligations, Dilapidations issues; or to commission a schedule of condition for a new lease call us on 020 4534 3132 or contact one of the team :