Wallace and Another v McMullen and Sons Ltd
Wallace and Another v McMullen and Sons Ltd
- 1988
- Estates Gazette (8828) 16 July 1988, 81-88(4) .
ChD 18 March 1988 A summons to determine questions of construction of rent review provisions. R and J Wallace (W) were the landlords and McMullen & Sons (M) were the tenants. The land was some 127 acres out of a larger estate, leased for use as a golf club . The lease provided for a number of easements and contained in a schedule extensive covenants on behalf of M. There were also landlords` covenants such as quiet enjoyment. The rights reserved to W included mines and minerals and sporting rights. The rent review clause was unusual in that it provided for increases of rent at seven-year intervals, not by reference to open market rentals, but to increases in vacant possession capital value of the land subject to the lease. Instead of a hypothetical lease the clause envisaged a hypothetical freehold with similar rights and obligations and with a similar planning permission to that enjoyed by the actual freehold. The question was what "rights and obligations", in the review clause shou
CONSTRUCTION OF CLAUSE
ChD 18 March 1988 A summons to determine questions of construction of rent review provisions. R and J Wallace (W) were the landlords and McMullen & Sons (M) were the tenants. The land was some 127 acres out of a larger estate, leased for use as a golf club . The lease provided for a number of easements and contained in a schedule extensive covenants on behalf of M. There were also landlords` covenants such as quiet enjoyment. The rights reserved to W included mines and minerals and sporting rights. The rent review clause was unusual in that it provided for increases of rent at seven-year intervals, not by reference to open market rentals, but to increases in vacant possession capital value of the land subject to the lease. Instead of a hypothetical lease the clause envisaged a hypothetical freehold with similar rights and obligations and with a similar planning permission to that enjoyed by the actual freehold. The question was what "rights and obligations", in the review clause shou
CONSTRUCTION OF CLAUSE