Ladbroke Group plc and another v Bristol City Council
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8823) 11 June 1988, 125-128(4)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 12 February 1988. Appeal by tenant (A) from decision in favour of landlords` (B) construction of rent review clause in a lease. In 1971 a building agreement was entered into between B, A and L, (the first plaintiff as surety). A was granted a licence to enter and construct on the site an office development and an hotel and B undertook to grant a 125-year lease from 5 July 1973 pursuant to the agreement. The lease contained provision for delay of the first rent review date if certain roadworks were not completed by 31 March 1973. The roadworks were not carried out and the point at issue concerned the starting point for the period of delay. B submitted that the first review date, which would otherwise have been 5 July 1980 would be postponed to 5 July 1981, according to a formula which provided that the first review date should be delayed "one year for every year or part of a year" until completion of the works, or notification by B that the works would not be carried out. A contend| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39342 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 16045-1001 |
CA 12 February 1988. Appeal by tenant (A) from decision in favour of landlords` (B) construction of rent review clause in a lease. In 1971 a building agreement was entered into between B, A and L, (the first plaintiff as surety). A was granted a licence to enter and construct on the site an office development and an hotel and B undertook to grant a 125-year lease from 5 July 1973 pursuant to the agreement. The lease contained provision for delay of the first rent review date if certain roadworks were not completed by 31 March 1973. The roadworks were not carried out and the point at issue concerned the starting point for the period of delay. B submitted that the first review date, which would otherwise have been 5 July 1980 would be postponed to 5 July 1981, according to a formula which provided that the first review date should be delayed "one year for every year or part of a year" until completion of the works, or notification by B that the works would not be carried out. A contend