Image from Google Jackets

Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Sketchley plc

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 280 (6309) 8 November 1986, 773-780(5)Publication details: 1986Subject(s): Summary: ChD 24 July 1986. Originating summons by N seeking declarations in favour of their claim to proceed with a rent review . S counterclaimed. The 21-year lease with provision for an upward only rent review; a trigger notice to be served "at any one time" after 14 years. The 14th year commenced on 29 September 1981. On 27 August 1982 a letter was sent by N`s surveyors stating that they had been instructed to negotiate the rent review effective as at 29 September 1982, proposing a rent of £11,500. S invited negotiations which were unsuccessful. If no agreement was reached within 3 months the landlords could require reference to a third party surveyor by giving notice 3 months thereafter. This notice was not served within the time limit . S argued that N had lost its chance to have the rent increased. In June 1983 N`s solicitors wrote, enclosing a second trigger notice, followed by a notice requiring reference to an expert which was served within the time limit. At issue was whether the re
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS37100 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 2303-1001

ChD 24 July 1986. Originating summons by N seeking declarations in favour of their claim to proceed with a rent review . S counterclaimed. The 21-year lease with provision for an upward only rent review; a trigger notice to be served "at any one time" after 14 years. The 14th year commenced on 29 September 1981. On 27 August 1982 a letter was sent by N`s surveyors stating that they had been instructed to negotiate the rent review effective as at 29 September 1982, proposing a rent of £11,500. S invited negotiations which were unsuccessful. If no agreement was reached within 3 months the landlords could require reference to a third party surveyor by giving notice 3 months thereafter. This notice was not served within the time limit . S argued that N had lost its chance to have the rent increased. In June 1983 N`s solicitors wrote, enclosing a second trigger notice, followed by a notice requiring reference to an expert which was served within the time limit. At issue was whether the re