Image from Google Jackets

Fox & Widley v Guram and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (9803) 17 January 1998, 142-146(5)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: QBD 3 October 1997. The applicant tenants held a lease on a lock-up shop and premises at a rent subject to rent review. The rent review clause provided that the rent at review should be such sum as should be specified in a notice served by the landlords to which the tenants were entitled to serve a counternotice within three months requiring the rent to be determined as the `open market rental` at arbitration. The landlord`s surveyor gave notice requiring the rent to be raised. The tenants failed to serve a counternotice. The tenants sought a declaration that the letter did not amount to notice within the meaning of the rent review clause because the Landlord`s surveyors had no authority to give the notice and the rent referred to was not the result of any determination of open market rental value. Also an extension of time under the Arbitration Act 1996 s12 was sought for serving the counternotice in order to bring the arbitration proceedings into being. Application dismissed
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS58190 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 83256-1001

QBD 3 October 1997. The applicant tenants held a lease on a lock-up shop and premises at a rent subject to rent review. The rent review clause provided that the rent at review should be such sum as should be specified in a notice served by the landlords to which the tenants were entitled to serve a counternotice within three months requiring the rent to be determined as the `open market rental` at arbitration. The landlord`s surveyor gave notice requiring the rent to be raised. The tenants failed to serve a counternotice. The tenants sought a declaration that the letter did not amount to notice within the meaning of the rent review clause because the Landlord`s surveyors had no authority to give the notice and the rent referred to was not the result of any determination of open market rental value. Also an extension of time under the Arbitration Act 1996 s12 was sought for serving the counternotice in order to bring the arbitration proceedings into being. Application dismissed