Fox & Ridley v Guram and another
Language: English Series: Rent Review & Lease Renewal ; [1998] 2 RRLR 183-192(10)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: QBD 3 October 1997. Landlords G served a notice requiring a rent review two days after the offical date, on shop premises leased by F. F failed a counternotice under the time limits expressed in the lease, but sought through appeal 1) declaration that G`s notice was defective because the date was misstated, G`s surveyors had no authority to serve notice, and the rent referred to was not the result of determination of the open market value, and 2) extension of time to serve counternotice to bring arbitration proceedings. Appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS58744 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 86471-1001 |
QBD 3 October 1997. Landlords G served a notice requiring a rent review two days after the offical date, on shop premises leased by F. F failed a counternotice under the time limits expressed in the lease, but sought through appeal 1) declaration that G`s notice was defective because the date was misstated, G`s surveyors had no authority to serve notice, and the rent referred to was not the result of determination of the open market value, and 2) extension of time to serve counternotice to bring arbitration proceedings. Appeal dismissed.