Landlord and tenant: rent review
Landlord and tenant: rent review
- 2001
- Estates Gazette [2001] 32 EG 89 (CS) (11/8/01) .
"Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd" CA 31 July 2001. Appellant (C) and respondent (S) were landlord and tenant. C served a notice for a rent increase, and S failed to serve a counternotice within specified time limit. C claimed a rent review clause bound S to pay the increase. High Court ruled in favour of S. C appealed. Appeal allowed on grounds that decision in "Henry Smiths Charity Trustees v AWADA" was more applicable than "Mecca Leisure v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd".
TIME LIMITS
TIME OF THE ESSENCE
STARMARK ENTERPRISES V CPL DISTRIBUTION
MECCA LEISURE LTD V RENOWN INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD
RENT REVIEWS
HENRY SMITHS CHARITY TRUSTEES V AWADA
"Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd" CA 31 July 2001. Appellant (C) and respondent (S) were landlord and tenant. C served a notice for a rent increase, and S failed to serve a counternotice within specified time limit. C claimed a rent review clause bound S to pay the increase. High Court ruled in favour of S. C appealed. Appeal allowed on grounds that decision in "Henry Smiths Charity Trustees v AWADA" was more applicable than "Mecca Leisure v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd".
TIME LIMITS
TIME OF THE ESSENCE
STARMARK ENTERPRISES V CPL DISTRIBUTION
MECCA LEISURE LTD V RENOWN INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LTD
RENT REVIEWS
HENRY SMITHS CHARITY TRUSTEES V AWADA