Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd
Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd
- 2000
- Estates Gazette [2000] 46 EG 196-201(6) .
ChD 6 June 2000. By a lease dated 21 February 1984, the claimant tenant (C) held a lease of commercial premises from the defendant landlord (S). The rent review clause allowed for the landlord to serve a notice for increased rent, and this rent would be payable unless the tenant served a counternotice within one month. On 30 March 1999 C served a notice to increase the rent to £84,800. S served a counternotice on 16 June 1999, stating the rent should be £52,725. C claimed the counternotice was not served in time, and therefore the tenant had agreed to pay £84,800. S issued proceedings regarding the validity of the rent review. "Held" for S. Following the CA decision in "Mecca Leisure Ltd v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd", the tenant's counternotice was declared valid; time is not of the essence of a rent review clause, except in rare cases.
COUNTER NOTICE
STARMARK ENTERPRISES V CPL DISTRIBUTION
RENT REVIEW CLAUSES
TIME NOT OF THE ESSENCE
TIME LIMITS
HENRY SMITHS CHARITY TRUSTEES V AWADA
MECCA LEISURE LTD V RENOWN INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD
ChD 6 June 2000. By a lease dated 21 February 1984, the claimant tenant (C) held a lease of commercial premises from the defendant landlord (S). The rent review clause allowed for the landlord to serve a notice for increased rent, and this rent would be payable unless the tenant served a counternotice within one month. On 30 March 1999 C served a notice to increase the rent to £84,800. S served a counternotice on 16 June 1999, stating the rent should be £52,725. C claimed the counternotice was not served in time, and therefore the tenant had agreed to pay £84,800. S issued proceedings regarding the validity of the rent review. "Held" for S. Following the CA decision in "Mecca Leisure Ltd v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd", the tenant's counternotice was declared valid; time is not of the essence of a rent review clause, except in rare cases.
COUNTER NOTICE
STARMARK ENTERPRISES V CPL DISTRIBUTION
RENT REVIEW CLAUSES
TIME NOT OF THE ESSENCE
TIME LIMITS
HENRY SMITHS CHARITY TRUSTEES V AWADA
MECCA LEISURE LTD V RENOWN INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD