Image from Google Jackets

Rent review: rectification

Series: Estates Gazette Case Summaries ; [2001] EGCS 10 (03/02/01)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: "Scott and another v City and County of Swansea" ChD 4 January 2001. Claimants (A) were trustees of a yacht club. Under an arrangement with the defendant council (B), A would be provided with 200 moorings under the terms of a long lease. It was later agreed that A would pay for the supply and construction of additional moorings, and that rent on review would be decided without regard to the work already paid for. A meeting was held in December 1991 where A's solicitor (BWL) and a council officer (H) were present, and subsequently H prepared a note stating works would be excluded from rent review. In January 1992 BWL received a draft of the agreement from H which excluded the pontoons from the disregard, and on this basis in September 1997 B gave notice of a rent review. In March 1998 A agreed to arbitration to resolve the new rent on the advice that this was their only option, and started proceedings against BWL for negligence. In December 1998, A commenced the current proceedings claiming rectification of the lease and that the arbitration order should be set aside due to H's fraudulent misrepresentation. Held, both claims allowed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London News article WB3706-21 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 110832-1001

"Scott and another v City and County of Swansea" ChD 4 January 2001. Claimants (A) were trustees of a yacht club. Under an arrangement with the defendant council (B), A would be provided with 200 moorings under the terms of a long lease. It was later agreed that A would pay for the supply and construction of additional moorings, and that rent on review would be decided without regard to the work already paid for. A meeting was held in December 1991 where A's solicitor (BWL) and a council officer (H) were present, and subsequently H prepared a note stating works would be excluded from rent review. In January 1992 BWL received a draft of the agreement from H which excluded the pontoons from the disregard, and on this basis in September 1997 B gave notice of a rent review. In March 1998 A agreed to arbitration to resolve the new rent on the advice that this was their only option, and started proceedings against BWL for negligence. In December 1998, A commenced the current proceedings claiming rectification of the lease and that the arbitration order should be set aside due to H's fraudulent misrepresentation. Held, both claims allowed.