Henniker-Major v Daniel Smith (A firm) and others
Henniker-Major v Daniel Smith (A firm) and others
- 1990
- Estates Gazette (1990) 20 EG 69-74(3) .
QBD 17 October 1989 Trial of a preliminary issue of construction of a lease , in an action for negligence brought by the plaintiffs (HM). The first defendants were the chartered surveyors Daniel Smith (D); the second to ninth defendants were partners in the former firm of solicitors Tweedie. HM`s claim against D was based on the alleged failure to serve a rent notice prior to 25 March 1980. The lease was executed in March 1975 but no rent notice was served on behalf of HM prior to 25 March 1980, the date when the first five years of the term came to an end. The first effective rent notice was served on 15 December 1980 which gave rise to the question whether the reviewed rent should be backdated to 25 March 1980 or whether it became payable only from 25 March 1981. D, acting as the landlord`s agents, argued that a failure to serve a rent notice in time, although it delayed actual receipt of an increase in rent, did not affect the landlords` rights. Rent was still due as from the expi
CASE LAW
RENT REVIEW
QBD 17 October 1989 Trial of a preliminary issue of construction of a lease , in an action for negligence brought by the plaintiffs (HM). The first defendants were the chartered surveyors Daniel Smith (D); the second to ninth defendants were partners in the former firm of solicitors Tweedie. HM`s claim against D was based on the alleged failure to serve a rent notice prior to 25 March 1980. The lease was executed in March 1975 but no rent notice was served on behalf of HM prior to 25 March 1980, the date when the first five years of the term came to an end. The first effective rent notice was served on 15 December 1980 which gave rise to the question whether the reviewed rent should be backdated to 25 March 1980 or whether it became payable only from 25 March 1981. D, acting as the landlord`s agents, argued that a failure to serve a rent notice in time, although it delayed actual receipt of an increase in rent, did not affect the landlords` rights. Rent was still due as from the expi
CASE LAW
RENT REVIEW