Khalique v Law Land PLC
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1989) 18 EG 111-115(3)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: CA 2 February 1989. Appeal by landlords (L) for leave to appeal out of time from decision of an Assistant Recorder (A), who determined a number of matters affecting the new tenancy of an Indian restaurant . The parties could not agree on issues such as rent, length of tenancy and terms. Having considered rental evidence and comparables in the same street, A determined the rent at £20,500 pa for a 10-year term, with a rent review at 5 years. A excluded from consideration two other comparables in the same street as both had a break clause and were in prime positions. L : 1) sought leave to adduce new evidence of the rent relating to one comparable which A had excluded and the rent relating to other premises not referred to in the trial and 2) submitted that the rent should be determined at £28,000. CA rejected these grounds, holding that "fresh evidence ought not to be admitted when it bears on matters falling within the field or area of uncertainty, in which the trial judge`s estimate| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS40809 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 26112-1001 |
CA 2 February 1989. Appeal by landlords (L) for leave to appeal out of time from decision of an Assistant Recorder (A), who determined a number of matters affecting the new tenancy of an Indian restaurant . The parties could not agree on issues such as rent, length of tenancy and terms. Having considered rental evidence and comparables in the same street, A determined the rent at £20,500 pa for a 10-year term, with a rent review at 5 years. A excluded from consideration two other comparables in the same street as both had a break clause and were in prime positions. L : 1) sought leave to adduce new evidence of the rent relating to one comparable which A had excluded and the rent relating to other premises not referred to in the trial and 2) submitted that the rent should be determined at £28,000. CA rejected these grounds, holding that "fresh evidence ought not to be admitted when it bears on matters falling within the field or area of uncertainty, in which the trial judge`s estimate