Image from Google Jackets

Wallshire Ltd v Aarons

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 02 EG 81-88(5)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: ChD 16 June 1988. An action by the plaintiffs, Wallshire Ltd (W), claiming damages for negligence against the defendant, Aarons, (A) acting as an expert valuer in a rent review dispute. The property consisted of a lock-up shop with self-contained maisonette above. The lease provided for a five-year rent review, and the review rent was defined as open market rent on the basis of certain assumptions, and included a direction to ignore goodwill . The lease required the independent surveyor to invite submissions from the parties which he could take into consideration, but would not bound by them. The rent determined by the independent expert was £6.600 based on a Zone A rent of £14 psf and a rent of £1,000 for the maisonette. W complained that this amount was too low, and claimed damages for negligence against A. In giving judgment, the main issues were whether A; 1) had dealt satisfactorily with the goodwill issue, 2) had been correct in dismissing a comparable put forward for the landl
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS40259 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 22595-1001

ChD 16 June 1988. An action by the plaintiffs, Wallshire Ltd (W), claiming damages for negligence against the defendant, Aarons, (A) acting as an expert valuer in a rent review dispute. The property consisted of a lock-up shop with self-contained maisonette above. The lease provided for a five-year rent review, and the review rent was defined as open market rent on the basis of certain assumptions, and included a direction to ignore goodwill . The lease required the independent surveyor to invite submissions from the parties which he could take into consideration, but would not bound by them. The rent determined by the independent expert was £6.600 based on a Zone A rent of £14 psf and a rent of £1,000 for the maisonette. W complained that this amount was too low, and claimed damages for negligence against A. In giving judgment, the main issues were whether A; 1) had dealt satisfactorily with the goodwill issue, 2) had been correct in dismissing a comparable put forward for the landl