Image from Google Jackets

Arnold and others v National Westminster Bank plc

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8845) 12 November 1988, 106-110(3)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: ChD 1 July 1988 Application by landlords National Westminster Bank (N) to strike out the claim by tenants Arnold and others (A), senior partners of Arthur Young McClelland and Moores , for a declaration seeking the construction of a rent review clause in a subunderlease . At the first review date the matter went to arbitration and the arbitrator held for A. On appeal by N, the ChD had allowed N`s appeal. A was refused leave to appeal and the CA held that it had not jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the ChD`s refusal to certify a question of law which should be considered by CA (See National Westminster Bank plc v Arthur Young McClelland and Moores ). At the second review date A started a further set of proceedings claiming, inter alia, a determination as to the true construction of the review clause. N applied to strike out the claim on the basis that there was an issue of estoppel on the matter. A contended that issue estoppel was not an absolute doctrine and that, in exce
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39993 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 20502-1001

ChD 1 July 1988 Application by landlords National Westminster Bank (N) to strike out the claim by tenants Arnold and others (A), senior partners of Arthur Young McClelland and Moores , for a declaration seeking the construction of a rent review clause in a subunderlease . At the first review date the matter went to arbitration and the arbitrator held for A. On appeal by N, the ChD had allowed N`s appeal. A was refused leave to appeal and the CA held that it had not jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the ChD`s refusal to certify a question of law which should be considered by CA (See National Westminster Bank plc v Arthur Young McClelland and Moores ). At the second review date A started a further set of proceedings claiming, inter alia, a determination as to the true construction of the review clause. N applied to strike out the claim on the basis that there was an issue of estoppel on the matter. A contended that issue estoppel was not an absolute doctrine and that, in exce