Image from Google Jackets

Donald Fisher (Ealing) Ltd v Spencer (HMIT)

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 284(6358) 31 October 1987, 634-36(2)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: ChD 11 June 1987 Appeal by taxpayer company against a decision by one of the special commissioners that it should pay corporation tax on a sum paid in settlement of a claim against a firm of estate agents . The company held a lease sumject to a rent review clause. On the serving of a trigger notice by the landlords specifying an increased rent, the company instructed estate agents to serve a counternotice objecting to the increase, but the estate agents negligently failed to do so within the specified time-limit . In an action by the landlords against the company a settlement was reached whereby the agents agreed to pay the company 14,000 as compensation for their negligence which had led to the company having to pay a higher rent during the residue of the lease than would have been payable if the agents had not been negligent. The sum was in effect paid to restore the loss in profits suffered by the company as a result of the negligence and in the opionion of the commissioner was co

ChD 11 June 1987 Appeal by taxpayer company against a decision by one of the special commissioners that it should pay corporation tax on a sum paid in settlement of a claim against a firm of estate agents . The company held a lease sumject to a rent review clause. On the serving of a trigger notice by the landlords specifying an increased rent, the company instructed estate agents to serve a counternotice objecting to the increase, but the estate agents negligently failed to do so within the specified time-limit . In an action by the landlords against the company a settlement was reached whereby the agents agreed to pay the company 14,000 as compensation for their negligence which had led to the company having to pay a higher rent during the residue of the lease than would have been payable if the agents had not been negligent. The sum was in effect paid to restore the loss in profits suffered by the company as a result of the negligence and in the opionion of the commissioner was co