Wilderbrook v Oluwu
Wilderbrook v Oluwu
- 2005
[2005] EWCA Civ 1361,16 November 2005. Considers whether time is of the essence in rent review clauses. A landlord (W) was in dispute with a tenant (O) after a large increase in the level of rent in a lease of commercial property. Under the lease, O had to serve a counter notice within one month or would be deemed to have accepted the new rent. Another provision in the lease, however, allowed O to appoint a surveyor to decide the new rent. In doing so, O missed the one month deadline. W claimed that, as a counter-notice had not been served, O was deemed to have accepted the new rent. "Held": appeal dismissed. Time should not be a factor for serving a counter-notice and O was entitled to appoint a lawyer to decide the rent even if this delayed the rent review.
WILDERBROOK V OLUWU
[2005] EWCA Civ 1361,16 November 2005. Considers whether time is of the essence in rent review clauses. A landlord (W) was in dispute with a tenant (O) after a large increase in the level of rent in a lease of commercial property. Under the lease, O had to serve a counter notice within one month or would be deemed to have accepted the new rent. Another provision in the lease, however, allowed O to appoint a surveyor to decide the new rent. In doing so, O missed the one month deadline. W claimed that, as a counter-notice had not been served, O was deemed to have accepted the new rent. "Held": appeal dismissed. Time should not be a factor for serving a counter-notice and O was entitled to appoint a lawyer to decide the rent even if this delayed the rent review.
WILDERBROOK V OLUWU