Control Securities plc v Spencer
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (8907) 18 February 1989, 82-84(2)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: ChD 24 March 1988. Motion by landlords (C) to set aside or remit an arbitrator`s (W) award in a rent review arbitration between C and the tenant (S). W was appointed to determine the open market rental value for the last 7 years of the 21-year term of a sports shop in a shopping centre. C contended for a rent of £9,320, while S contended for £6,500. W`s determination was £7,300. W notified the parties that they would have the opportunity of making submissions in writing , but he reserved the right to hold an oral hearing. He proposed certain rules of procedure. The parties were to submit their respective opinions on rental value with comparables and W would send each party`s submission to the other. An opportunity was given for counter-submissions, after which there was to be no further correspondence, but W would make contact with the parties to discuss whether the matter should proceed by oral hearing. S`s surveyor (F) made submissions containing details of comparables but gave no| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS40365 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 23324-1001 |
ChD 24 March 1988. Motion by landlords (C) to set aside or remit an arbitrator`s (W) award in a rent review arbitration between C and the tenant (S). W was appointed to determine the open market rental value for the last 7 years of the 21-year term of a sports shop in a shopping centre. C contended for a rent of £9,320, while S contended for £6,500. W`s determination was £7,300. W notified the parties that they would have the opportunity of making submissions in writing , but he reserved the right to hold an oral hearing. He proposed certain rules of procedure. The parties were to submit their respective opinions on rental value with comparables and W would send each party`s submission to the other. An opportunity was given for counter-submissions, after which there was to be no further correspondence, but W would make contact with the parties to discuss whether the matter should proceed by oral hearing. S`s surveyor (F) made submissions containing details of comparables but gave no