Image from Google Jackets

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
Holdings
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