Zubaida v Hargreaves
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1995) 9 EG 320-322(3)Publication details: 1995Subject(s): Summary: CA 10 August 1994. The defendant, H, was appointed by the RICS as an expert to determine at rent review the rent payable for a restaurant. The landlord had submitted a claim for £50,000, while Z, the tenant, relying on a comparable, argued for retaining the rent at £15,000. H settled on £27,000. Z challenged this in the courts, claiming that H was negligent and relied on comparables other than restaurants. He also sought to adduce further evidence in that Z had subsequently taken another lease at a lower rent. Having lost at first instance, Z`s appeal was also dimissed, it being "held" to be insufficient in a negligence case to demonstrate that another expert would have arrived at a different conclusion.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS52553 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 84400-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 10 August 1994. The defendant, H, was appointed by the RICS as an expert to determine at rent review the rent payable for a restaurant. The landlord had submitted a claim for £50,000, while Z, the tenant, relying on a comparable, argued for retaining the rent at £15,000. H settled on £27,000. Z challenged this in the courts, claiming that H was negligent and relied on comparables other than restaurants. He also sought to adduce further evidence in that Z had subsequently taken another lease at a lower rent. Having lost at first instance, Z`s appeal was also dimissed, it being "held" to be insufficient in a negligence case to demonstrate that another expert would have arrived at a different conclusion.