Bailey and Bailey v Supasnaps Ltd
Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1995) 70 P&CR 450-458(9)Publication details: 1995Subject(s): Summary: CA 17 May 1995. An appeal against the decision that the lessors` rent review notice dated 9 October 1991 had not been served in time was allowed. The confusion surrounded the fact that the lease stated the period of notice should be `a clear period of two quarters`, the appeal judge argued that the rental period expired at the very last moment of 23 June 1992 (one of the quarter days) so provided a notice was served before 24 December 1991 it was in fact valid.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS54025 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 7942-1001 |
CA 17 May 1995. An appeal against the decision that the lessors` rent review notice dated 9 October 1991 had not been served in time was allowed. The confusion surrounded the fact that the lease stated the period of notice should be `a clear period of two quarters`, the appeal judge argued that the rental period expired at the very last moment of 23 June 1992 (one of the quarter days) so provided a notice was served before 24 December 1991 it was in fact valid.