Apus Properties Ltd v Douglas Farrow and Co Ltd and others
Apus Properties Ltd v Douglas Farrow and Co Ltd and others
- 1989
- Estates Gazette Law Reports (1989) 2 EGLR 265-272(8) .
QBD 18 April 1989. The landlords (A) were suing the original tenant (D) and the sureties of the assignees of the lease for rent arrears arising as a result of the determination of the rent review by a independent surveyor (B). The rent review clause hypothesized a letting "on the same terms ... no account being taken of any improvements carried out by the tenant". The lease restricted use of the building to offices in connection with the business of property management and dealers and ancillary legal offices. The issue was whether B was in error regarding the rent review on the grounds that he failed to disregard improvements and valued on the basis that the hypothetical lease contained the user covenant . B produced a speaking award which stated that he had assumed that the user clause had been varied in accordance with the deed so as to be used as offices for other professionals and that the basement had been valued as offices. If the review was incorrect then there was the questio
DISREGARDS
NEGLIGENCE
RESTRICTED USE
QBD 18 April 1989. The landlords (A) were suing the original tenant (D) and the sureties of the assignees of the lease for rent arrears arising as a result of the determination of the rent review by a independent surveyor (B). The rent review clause hypothesized a letting "on the same terms ... no account being taken of any improvements carried out by the tenant". The lease restricted use of the building to offices in connection with the business of property management and dealers and ancillary legal offices. The issue was whether B was in error regarding the rent review on the grounds that he failed to disregard improvements and valued on the basis that the hypothetical lease contained the user covenant . B produced a speaking award which stated that he had assumed that the user clause had been varied in accordance with the deed so as to be used as offices for other professionals and that the basement had been valued as offices. If the review was incorrect then there was the questio
DISREGARDS
NEGLIGENCE
RESTRICTED USE