Zubaida v Hargreaves
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1995) 9 EG 320-322(3)Publication details: 1995Subject(s): Summary: CA 10 August 1994. The defendant, H, was appointed by the RICS as an expert to determine at rent review the rent payable for a restaurant. The landlord had submitted a claim for £50,000, while Z, the tenant, relying on a comparable, argued for retaining the rent at £15,000. H settled on £27,000. Z challenged this in the courts, claiming that H was negligent and relied on comparables other than restaurants. He also sought to adduce further evidence in that Z had subsequently taken another lease at a lower rent. Having lost at first instance, Z`s appeal was also dimissed, it being "held" to be insufficient in a negligence case to demonstrate that another expert would have arrived at a different conclusion.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS52553 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 84400-1001 |
CA 10 August 1994. The defendant, H, was appointed by the RICS as an expert to determine at rent review the rent payable for a restaurant. The landlord had submitted a claim for £50,000, while Z, the tenant, relying on a comparable, argued for retaining the rent at £15,000. H settled on £27,000. Z challenged this in the courts, claiming that H was negligent and relied on comparables other than restaurants. He also sought to adduce further evidence in that Z had subsequently taken another lease at a lower rent. Having lost at first instance, Z`s appeal was also dimissed, it being "held" to be insufficient in a negligence case to demonstrate that another expert would have arrived at a different conclusion.