Conway v Arthur and Others
Conway v Arthur and Others
- 1988
- Estates Gazette (8840) 8 October 1988, 120-122(2) .
CA 9 June 1988. Appeal by tenant (C) from part of a CC decision concerning the amount of interim rent payable on a lock-up butcher`s shop in Wembley. The CC also ruled on the rent for the new tenancy . He fixed the annual rent at £4,981.50 and the interim rent at £4,234. In determining the interim rent, the CC gave no reasons for the award, but settled on a figure 15% less than the rent for the new term. C appealed, contending that, in arriving at a figure only 15% below current market rent, but 230% above existing rent, CC did not have sufficient regard to the existing rent, as required by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s24A; neither did the CC take into account the figure put forward by C`s surveyor for the interim rent,ie £2,500. At issue was whether the CC had properly exercised discretion. In CA, attention was drawn, on behalf of C, to the decision in Charles Follett Ltd v Cabtell Investments Ltd, CA 1987, see Abstract 37967, where it was considered that the primary purpose of
HALBERSTAM V TANDALCO CORPORATION NV
INTERIM RENTS
CA 9 June 1988. Appeal by tenant (C) from part of a CC decision concerning the amount of interim rent payable on a lock-up butcher`s shop in Wembley. The CC also ruled on the rent for the new tenancy . He fixed the annual rent at £4,981.50 and the interim rent at £4,234. In determining the interim rent, the CC gave no reasons for the award, but settled on a figure 15% less than the rent for the new term. C appealed, contending that, in arriving at a figure only 15% below current market rent, but 230% above existing rent, CC did not have sufficient regard to the existing rent, as required by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s24A; neither did the CC take into account the figure put forward by C`s surveyor for the interim rent,ie £2,500. At issue was whether the CC had properly exercised discretion. In CA, attention was drawn, on behalf of C, to the decision in Charles Follett Ltd v Cabtell Investments Ltd, CA 1987, see Abstract 37967, where it was considered that the primary purpose of
HALBERSTAM V TANDALCO CORPORATION NV
INTERIM RENTS