Image from Google Jackets

Wallace and Another v McMullen and Sons Ltd

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8828) 16 July 1988, 81-88(4)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: ChD 18 March 1988 A summons to determine questions of construction of rent review provisions. R and J Wallace (W) were the landlords and McMullen & Sons (M) were the tenants. The land was some 127 acres out of a larger estate, leased for use as a golf club . The lease provided for a number of easements and contained in a schedule extensive covenants on behalf of M. There were also landlords` covenants such as quiet enjoyment. The rights reserved to W included mines and minerals and sporting rights. The rent review clause was unusual in that it provided for increases of rent at seven-year intervals, not by reference to open market rentals, but to increases in vacant possession capital value of the land subject to the lease. Instead of a hypothetical lease the clause envisaged a hypothetical freehold with similar rights and obligations and with a similar planning permission to that enjoyed by the actual freehold. The question was what "rights and obligations", in the review clause shou
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39512 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 17245-1001

ChD 18 March 1988 A summons to determine questions of construction of rent review provisions. R and J Wallace (W) were the landlords and McMullen & Sons (M) were the tenants. The land was some 127 acres out of a larger estate, leased for use as a golf club . The lease provided for a number of easements and contained in a schedule extensive covenants on behalf of M. There were also landlords` covenants such as quiet enjoyment. The rights reserved to W included mines and minerals and sporting rights. The rent review clause was unusual in that it provided for increases of rent at seven-year intervals, not by reference to open market rentals, but to increases in vacant possession capital value of the land subject to the lease. Instead of a hypothetical lease the clause envisaged a hypothetical freehold with similar rights and obligations and with a similar planning permission to that enjoyed by the actual freehold. The question was what "rights and obligations", in the review clause shou