Pembroke St Georges Ltd v Cromwell Developments Ltd
Pembroke St Georges Ltd v Cromwell Developments Ltd
- 1991
- Estates Gazette (1991) 40 EG 1165-116(2) .
ChD 10 April 1991. The lease in question was made between the landlord X and the defendants, C, the lessees. C had carried out the development and entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement with X. The lease granted a term of 99 years from June 1965, the initial rent being £30,750, later reduced to £30,000. The lease provided for rent reviews at very long intervals, the first taking place after 24 years. The rent should be equal to the preceding period or 3/4 of the yearly rack-rental value at the last quarter day but before the end of the rent review period, whichever is the higher. X should have applied for an arbitration between 25 December 1988, the last quarter day and 24 June 1989 but did not. In November 1989 the plaintiffs, P, bought the reversion of the lease and applied to the RICS for an arbitrator. C argued that since the application was out of time no rent review could take place and the rent should be frozen at £30,000. P however claimed that time was not of the esse
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
LONG REVIEW PERIOD
RACK RENT
RENT REVIEWS
SALE AND LEASEBACK
SHOPPING CENTRES
TIME OF THE ESSENCE
ChD 10 April 1991. The lease in question was made between the landlord X and the defendants, C, the lessees. C had carried out the development and entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement with X. The lease granted a term of 99 years from June 1965, the initial rent being £30,750, later reduced to £30,000. The lease provided for rent reviews at very long intervals, the first taking place after 24 years. The rent should be equal to the preceding period or 3/4 of the yearly rack-rental value at the last quarter day but before the end of the rent review period, whichever is the higher. X should have applied for an arbitration between 25 December 1988, the last quarter day and 24 June 1989 but did not. In November 1989 the plaintiffs, P, bought the reversion of the lease and applied to the RICS for an arbitrator. C argued that since the application was out of time no rent review could take place and the rent should be frozen at £30,000. P however claimed that time was not of the esse
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
LONG REVIEW PERIOD
RACK RENT
RENT REVIEWS
SALE AND LEASEBACK
SHOPPING CENTRES
TIME OF THE ESSENCE