Boots UK Ltd v Trafford Centre Ltd [electronic resource]
Boots UK Ltd v Trafford Centre Ltd [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] EWCH 3372(Ch), 8 December 2008. Case shows that Landlords' solicitors need to be careful when drafting service charge clauses. A claimant tenant (B) argued that entertainments and attractions provided by the defendant landlord of a shopping centre (T) should not be covered under the service charge in its commercial lease. It argued that they should count as promotions aimed at attracting more customers. Under the lease, tenants had to pay all costs of entertainments and attractions deemed amenities for the centre. However, their liability to pay for promotions that bring in more customers is limited and shared with the landlord. Held: preliminary issue determined in favour of the landlord. The Court determined that the definition of 'promotion' within the terms of a lease should be decided not by attempting a comprehensive definition, but to decide whether it was within the ordinary understanding of a form of promotion. The attraction in this case were only serving the centre and not for wider promotion within the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the tenant and other tenants on similar leases have to pay for the costs of entertainment and attraction through service charge.
BOOTS UK LTD V TRAFFORD CENTRE LTD
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWCH 3372(Ch), 8 December 2008. Case shows that Landlords' solicitors need to be careful when drafting service charge clauses. A claimant tenant (B) argued that entertainments and attractions provided by the defendant landlord of a shopping centre (T) should not be covered under the service charge in its commercial lease. It argued that they should count as promotions aimed at attracting more customers. Under the lease, tenants had to pay all costs of entertainments and attractions deemed amenities for the centre. However, their liability to pay for promotions that bring in more customers is limited and shared with the landlord. Held: preliminary issue determined in favour of the landlord. The Court determined that the definition of 'promotion' within the terms of a lease should be decided not by attempting a comprehensive definition, but to decide whether it was within the ordinary understanding of a form of promotion. The attraction in this case were only serving the centre and not for wider promotion within the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the tenant and other tenants on similar leases have to pay for the costs of entertainment and attraction through service charge.
BOOTS UK LTD V TRAFFORD CENTRE LTD
England and Wales--1543-