Manders Property (Estates) Ltd v Magnet House Properties Ltd
Manders Property (Estates) Ltd v Magnet House Properties Ltd
- 1989
- Estates Gazette (1989) 42 EG 111-116(4) .
ChD 14 April 1989. The property in question is Victoria House, the original building of that name, constructed in 1971 called `the old premises` (O) with an extension added in 1982, `the new premises` (N). The original tenant (G) of O, carried out certain improvements to the shell. By an underlease dated 1977 the landlords (M) granted an underlease to G for 35 years. In 1981 an agreement was entered into between the lessor (MH), M and G stating that G wished to surrender their underlease which M agreed to on the condition of the grant to MH of an underlease comprising N and O was conditional on MH obtaining a building contract for works which included the erection of N. MH was to pay for these alterations but a rent relevant to the new underlease was to be agreed, being 15% of the costs. Rent reviews were to be at five yearly intervals and if agreement was not reached an arbitrator was to be appointed. At the first rent review M and MH failed to agree on the new rent and an arbitrato
ChD 14 April 1989. The property in question is Victoria House, the original building of that name, constructed in 1971 called `the old premises` (O) with an extension added in 1982, `the new premises` (N). The original tenant (G) of O, carried out certain improvements to the shell. By an underlease dated 1977 the landlords (M) granted an underlease to G for 35 years. In 1981 an agreement was entered into between the lessor (MH), M and G stating that G wished to surrender their underlease which M agreed to on the condition of the grant to MH of an underlease comprising N and O was conditional on MH obtaining a building contract for works which included the erection of N. MH was to pay for these alterations but a rent relevant to the new underlease was to be agreed, being 15% of the costs. Rent reviews were to be at five yearly intervals and if agreement was not reached an arbitrator was to be appointed. At the first rent review M and MH failed to agree on the new rent and an arbitrato