Shuwa Ashdown House Corporation v Grayrigg Properties Ltd and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 1992 46 EG 108-111(4)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: ChD 27 July 1992. Raises a question of law on two identical rent review clauses in two leases, the first relating to a shop in Victoria Street, London SW1; the second to a display case adjoining the shop. The plaintiff company (S) is owner of the shop; the defendants (G) are the original lessee and the present lessee by assignment and are members of the same group of companies. Leases provided for two rent reviews one of which was to take effect on 25 March 1990. In accordance with the review, the date of increase was 25 March 1990 and the review date was 25 December 1989. S argued that he had not forfeited the right to review the rent by reason of not having obtained a certificate from an independent valuer by 25 March 1990 in default of the rent review clause. G disagreed. Found in favour of the landlord due to a proviso in the clause.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS47694 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 63096-1001 |
ChD 27 July 1992. Raises a question of law on two identical rent review clauses in two leases, the first relating to a shop in Victoria Street, London SW1; the second to a display case adjoining the shop. The plaintiff company (S) is owner of the shop; the defendants (G) are the original lessee and the present lessee by assignment and are members of the same group of companies. Leases provided for two rent reviews one of which was to take effect on 25 March 1990. In accordance with the review, the date of increase was 25 March 1990 and the review date was 25 December 1989. S argued that he had not forfeited the right to review the rent by reason of not having obtained a certificate from an independent valuer by 25 March 1990 in default of the rent review clause. G disagreed. Found in favour of the landlord due to a proviso in the clause.