Where a plaintiff claims rectification costs for tortious damage to an investment property, the plaintiff must adduce evidence of a reasonable desire to reinstate and of the reasons for wishing to retain the property. The absence of such evidence, combined with a significant disparity between rectification costs and diminution in value, will result in damages being limited to diminution in value plus conveyancing costs. A claimant may in principle recover both rectification costs and an allowance for residual diminution in value, but must adduce evidence to support the latter.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.