Triumph Securities Ltd v Reid Furniture Co Ltd
Triumph Securities Ltd v Reid Furniture Co Ltd
- 1987
- Estates Gazette 283(6350) 5 September 1987, 1071(1) .
ChD 7 November 1986. Application by Triumph Securities for leave to appeal against an arbitration award arising out of a rent review clause in a lease. Award was disputed on the ground that the arbitrator had erroneously laid down as a rule of law that a 14% deduction, representing the relationship of frontage to depth of ground-floor premises, should always be made. The judge drew attention to the correct approach in deciding whether to grant leave to appeal. The present case centred around the issue of what the arbitrator meant by certain observations in his decision. It was held that the arbitrator had not erred in law, and had stated that "should zoning apply, a discount should be made to reflect the relationship of frontage to depth". Thus, the adoption of a 14% deduction was the finding for this specific case and not intended as a statement of general rule. Leave to appeal refused.
ChD 7 November 1986. Application by Triumph Securities for leave to appeal against an arbitration award arising out of a rent review clause in a lease. Award was disputed on the ground that the arbitrator had erroneously laid down as a rule of law that a 14% deduction, representing the relationship of frontage to depth of ground-floor premises, should always be made. The judge drew attention to the correct approach in deciding whether to grant leave to appeal. The present case centred around the issue of what the arbitrator meant by certain observations in his decision. It was held that the arbitrator had not erred in law, and had stated that "should zoning apply, a discount should be made to reflect the relationship of frontage to depth". Thus, the adoption of a 14% deduction was the finding for this specific case and not intended as a statement of general rule. Leave to appeal refused.