Image from Google Jackets

Standard Life Assurance Co v Oxoid Ltd ; Oxoid Ltd v Standard Life Assurance Co

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 283(6325) 19 September 1987, 1219-1222(3)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: CA 31 July 1987. An appeal from a decision on the construction of a rent review clause in a lease. There were two originating summonses, one by the landlord (Standard Life)(S) and one by the tenant (Oxoid Ltd)(O). At issue was the meaning of "standard accommodation" when determining the review rent. In the ChD, the judge accepted S`s submission as to the matter of construction of the meaning of standard accommodation , and O appealed. (For the facts of the case see Abstract 36106). On appeal, it was held that the judge had interpreted the expression too narrowly; the scope of inquiry should not have been confined to the industrial estate in question; the judge was wrong to restrict the size of the "standard accommodation". In the end, the matter came down to the identification of appropriate properties in the area which would be a matter for the surveyor in the event of a dispute. The court accepted as suitable a form of declaration proposed by O. O`s appeal allowed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS38191 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 9106-1001

CA 31 July 1987. An appeal from a decision on the construction of a rent review clause in a lease. There were two originating summonses, one by the landlord (Standard Life)(S) and one by the tenant (Oxoid Ltd)(O). At issue was the meaning of "standard accommodation" when determining the review rent. In the ChD, the judge accepted S`s submission as to the matter of construction of the meaning of standard accommodation , and O appealed. (For the facts of the case see Abstract 36106). On appeal, it was held that the judge had interpreted the expression too narrowly; the scope of inquiry should not have been confined to the industrial estate in question; the judge was wrong to restrict the size of the "standard accommodation". In the end, the matter came down to the identification of appropriate properties in the area which would be a matter for the surveyor in the event of a dispute. The court accepted as suitable a form of declaration proposed by O. O`s appeal allowed.