Image from Google Jackets

Conway v Arthur and Others

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8840) 8 October 1988, 120-122(2)Publication details: 1988Subject(s): Summary: CA 9 June 1988. Appeal by tenant (C) from part of a CC decision concerning the amount of interim rent payable on a lock-up butcher`s shop in Wembley. The CC also ruled on the rent for the new tenancy . He fixed the annual rent at £4,981.50 and the interim rent at £4,234. In determining the interim rent, the CC gave no reasons for the award, but settled on a figure 15% less than the rent for the new term. C appealed, contending that, in arriving at a figure only 15% below current market rent, but 230% above existing rent, CC did not have sufficient regard to the existing rent, as required by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s24A; neither did the CC take into account the figure put forward by C`s surveyor for the interim rent,ie £2,500. At issue was whether the CC had properly exercised discretion. In CA, attention was drawn, on behalf of C, to the decision in Charles Follett Ltd v Cabtell Investments Ltd, CA 1987, see Abstract 37967, where it was considered that the primary purpose of
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS39855 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 19460-1001

CA 9 June 1988. Appeal by tenant (C) from part of a CC decision concerning the amount of interim rent payable on a lock-up butcher`s shop in Wembley. The CC also ruled on the rent for the new tenancy . He fixed the annual rent at £4,981.50 and the interim rent at £4,234. In determining the interim rent, the CC gave no reasons for the award, but settled on a figure 15% less than the rent for the new term. C appealed, contending that, in arriving at a figure only 15% below current market rent, but 230% above existing rent, CC did not have sufficient regard to the existing rent, as required by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 s24A; neither did the CC take into account the figure put forward by C`s surveyor for the interim rent,ie £2,500. At issue was whether the CC had properly exercised discretion. In CA, attention was drawn, on behalf of C, to the decision in Charles Follett Ltd v Cabtell Investments Ltd, CA 1987, see Abstract 37967, where it was considered that the primary purpose of