Legal and Commercial Properties Ltd v Lothian Regional Council
Language: English Series: Scots Law Times ; (1988) SLT 463-466(4)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: Outer House, 18 December 1987. The rent review provisions of a lease provided that the landlords were to give the tenants three months written notice of their intention to require a review. If the tenants did not accept the specified rent, the tenants were to serve a counternotice indicating non-acceptance within 28 days. A notice proposing the new rent was issued on 8 October 1986; on 14 November the tenants gave notice that the rent was unacceptable. A summary trial was sought on the question of whether or not the tenants` counternotice was effective to bring into operation the rent fixing provisions notwithstanding the fact that it was given outwith the stipulated period of 28 days. It was held that there were no contra-indications such as would displace the presumption that time was not of the essence in relation to the counternotice, which accordingly was effective.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS39343 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 16050-1001 |
Outer House, 18 December 1987. The rent review provisions of a lease provided that the landlords were to give the tenants three months written notice of their intention to require a review. If the tenants did not accept the specified rent, the tenants were to serve a counternotice indicating non-acceptance within 28 days. A notice proposing the new rent was issued on 8 October 1986; on 14 November the tenants gave notice that the rent was unacceptable. A summary trial was sought on the question of whether or not the tenants` counternotice was effective to bring into operation the rent fixing provisions notwithstanding the fact that it was given outwith the stipulated period of 28 days. It was held that there were no contra-indications such as would displace the presumption that time was not of the essence in relation to the counternotice, which accordingly was effective.