Landlord and tenant: rent review
Series: Estates Gazette ; [2001] 32 EG 89 (CS) (11/8/01)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: "Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd" CA 31 July 2001. Appellant (C) and respondent (S) were landlord and tenant. C served a notice for a rent increase, and S failed to serve a counternotice within specified time limit. C claimed a rent review clause bound S to pay the increase. High Court ruled in favour of S. C appealed. Appeal allowed on grounds that decision in "Henry Smiths Charity Trustees v AWADA" was more applicable than "Mecca Leisure v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd".| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London News article | WB3731-34 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 114173-1001 |
"Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd" CA 31 July 2001. Appellant (C) and respondent (S) were landlord and tenant. C served a notice for a rent increase, and S failed to serve a counternotice within specified time limit. C claimed a rent review clause bound S to pay the increase. High Court ruled in favour of S. C appealed. Appeal allowed on grounds that decision in "Henry Smiths Charity Trustees v AWADA" was more applicable than "Mecca Leisure v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd".