R & A Millett (Shops) Ltd v Leon Allan International Fashions Ltd
R & A Millett (Shops) Ltd v Leon Allan International Fashions Ltd
- 1988
- Estates Gazette (8813) 2 April 1988, 50-56(3) .
ChD 2 December 1987 Originating summons in which R & A Millett (Shops) Ltd (M) sought determination of the true construction of rent provisions in an underlease held by Leon International Fashions Ltd (L). The rent formula in the underlease fixed the rent payable as the fraction of 78/85 of the rent of the superior lease, which provided for rent review s. The explanation of the fraction was that the underlease did not demise the whole property comprised in the superior lease. The event which gave rise to the problem of construction was surrender of the superior lease in the pursuance of a leaseback arrangement in which the superior lease property and certain others were included in a new lease. The new superior lease was stated to be subject to and with the benefit of the underlease. L argued that surrender ended operation of the rent formula; as the original superior lease had ceased to exist the formula could no longer be invoked to quantify the rent of the underlease. M argued tha
BUSINESS TENANCIES
CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERLEASE
RENT DETERMINATION
ChD 2 December 1987 Originating summons in which R & A Millett (Shops) Ltd (M) sought determination of the true construction of rent provisions in an underlease held by Leon International Fashions Ltd (L). The rent formula in the underlease fixed the rent payable as the fraction of 78/85 of the rent of the superior lease, which provided for rent review s. The explanation of the fraction was that the underlease did not demise the whole property comprised in the superior lease. The event which gave rise to the problem of construction was surrender of the superior lease in the pursuance of a leaseback arrangement in which the superior lease property and certain others were included in a new lease. The new superior lease was stated to be subject to and with the benefit of the underlease. L argued that surrender ended operation of the rent formula; as the original superior lease had ceased to exist the formula could no longer be invoked to quantify the rent of the underlease. M argued tha
BUSINESS TENANCIES
CONSTRUCTION OF UNDERLEASE
RENT DETERMINATION