Royal Life Insurance v Phillips
Royal Life Insurance v Phillips
- 1990
- Estates Gazette (1990) 43 EG 70-76(4) .
QBD 5 March 1990. By a lease dated 27 January 1977 a company (B) of whom the plaintiffs (R) are the successors in title, let a shop premises for a 20 year term to another company of whom the defendants (P) are the successors in title. The rent for the first five years was £12,000 with a five yearly rent review when it should be increased to the open market value or remain as it was. The rent review was operated in 1981 and increased to £16,000. In June 1986 B wrote to P notifying a rent increase to £39,000, however this letter was headed "subject to contract" and " Without prejudice " and the case rests on whether this deprives the trigger notice of being effective for the purposes of the lease. P queried the high increase but R`s solicitor denied that this was a valid notice as the original letter was not a negotiating document but a notice advocating the rent review procedure . QBD held in R`s favour saying that the letter was a valid notice on the grounds that it had been properly
RECORDED DELIVERY
QBD 5 March 1990. By a lease dated 27 January 1977 a company (B) of whom the plaintiffs (R) are the successors in title, let a shop premises for a 20 year term to another company of whom the defendants (P) are the successors in title. The rent for the first five years was £12,000 with a five yearly rent review when it should be increased to the open market value or remain as it was. The rent review was operated in 1981 and increased to £16,000. In June 1986 B wrote to P notifying a rent increase to £39,000, however this letter was headed "subject to contract" and " Without prejudice " and the case rests on whether this deprives the trigger notice of being effective for the purposes of the lease. P queried the high increase but R`s solicitor denied that this was a valid notice as the original letter was not a negotiating document but a notice advocating the rent review procedure . QBD held in R`s favour saying that the letter was a valid notice on the grounds that it had been properly
RECORDED DELIVERY