Image from Google Jackets

Tesco Holdings Ltd v Jackson and another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 10 EG 71-75(3)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: ChD 28 April 1989. Application by the tenant (T) under Arbitration Act 1979 s2(3)(b) to appeal against the award of an arbitrator in respect of the operation of a rent review clause in a lease made on 16 April 1973 between T and the predecessors in title to the landlord (J). The demise was an area of 4.75 acres for a 125 year term with an upward rent review every 14 years, the initial rent being £9,000 pa. By clause 6 of the lease the reviewed rent was to be the higher of the initial rent or the open market rental value , the valuation to be based on the lease of the site only not the buildings which T had erected. The award from the arbitrator, dated 1 December 1988, reviewed the rent at £184,448 pa. T claimed it should be £68,000. Question arose as to the validity of the arbitrators sum. There were no direct comparables for ascertaining the rent of the site on which the supermarket stood. J`s surveyor produced evidence of the capital value of freehold sites which he adjusted to fin
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS42380 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 36459-1001

ChD 28 April 1989. Application by the tenant (T) under Arbitration Act 1979 s2(3)(b) to appeal against the award of an arbitrator in respect of the operation of a rent review clause in a lease made on 16 April 1973 between T and the predecessors in title to the landlord (J). The demise was an area of 4.75 acres for a 125 year term with an upward rent review every 14 years, the initial rent being £9,000 pa. By clause 6 of the lease the reviewed rent was to be the higher of the initial rent or the open market rental value , the valuation to be based on the lease of the site only not the buildings which T had erected. The award from the arbitrator, dated 1 December 1988, reviewed the rent at £184,448 pa. T claimed it should be £68,000. Question arose as to the validity of the arbitrators sum. There were no direct comparables for ascertaining the rent of the site on which the supermarket stood. J`s surveyor produced evidence of the capital value of freehold sites which he adjusted to fin