Patel and another v Earlspring Properties Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 1991 46 EG 153-155(3)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 11 March 1991. Appeal on the interpretation and application of a rent review clause in a shop lease. Raises the question of whether a letter from tenants (P) in response to landlords` (E) trigger notice constituted a valid counternotice and whether a failure by P to state a counter-proposal in regard to the rent was a fatal defect. E on appeal complained that the court had been wrong in holding that P`s counternotice was valid as it failed to specify a proposed rent citing the "Commission for the New Towns v R Levy & Co Ltd". CA held that the cited case had no application to the present case, P`s notice was valid. However, the CA dismissed the lower court`s view that by failing to negotiate, E had lost the right to have the rent reviewed. Appeal allowed in part.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS45464 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 53141-1001 |
CA 11 March 1991. Appeal on the interpretation and application of a rent review clause in a shop lease. Raises the question of whether a letter from tenants (P) in response to landlords` (E) trigger notice constituted a valid counternotice and whether a failure by P to state a counter-proposal in regard to the rent was a fatal defect. E on appeal complained that the court had been wrong in holding that P`s counternotice was valid as it failed to specify a proposed rent citing the "Commission for the New Towns v R Levy & Co Ltd". CA held that the cited case had no application to the present case, P`s notice was valid. However, the CA dismissed the lower court`s view that by failing to negotiate, E had lost the right to have the rent reviewed. Appeal allowed in part.