Wilderbrook v Oluwu
Language: English Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWCA Civ 1361,16 November 2005. Considers whether time is of the essence in rent review clauses. A landlord (W) was in dispute with a tenant (O) after a large increase in the level of rent in a lease of commercial property. Under the lease, O had to serve a counter notice within one month or would be deemed to have accepted the new rent. Another provision in the lease, however, allowed O to appoint a surveyor to decide the new rent. In doing so, O missed the one month deadline. W claimed that, as a counter-notice had not been served, O was deemed to have accepted the new rent. "Held": appeal dismissed. Time should not be a factor for serving a counter-notice and O was entitled to appoint a lawyer to decide the rent even if this delayed the rent review.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 131913-2001 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 1361,16 November 2005. Considers whether time is of the essence in rent review clauses. A landlord (W) was in dispute with a tenant (O) after a large increase in the level of rent in a lease of commercial property. Under the lease, O had to serve a counter notice within one month or would be deemed to have accepted the new rent. Another provision in the lease, however, allowed O to appoint a surveyor to decide the new rent. In doing so, O missed the one month deadline. W claimed that, as a counter-notice had not been served, O was deemed to have accepted the new rent. "Held": appeal dismissed. Time should not be a factor for serving a counter-notice and O was entitled to appoint a lawyer to decide the rent even if this delayed the rent review.