CA 31 July 2001. Claimant tenant (C) held a commercial lease from defendant landlord (S). The rent review provisions of which included a clause that if the tenant failed to serve a counter-notice within a period of one month from the receipt of a rent notice from the landlord, the tenant will be deemed to have agreed to pay the increased rate specified in the rent notice. On 30 March 1999 S served a notice proposing a new rent of £84 800 pa with effect from 1 August 1999. C did not serve its counter-notice for £52 725 until 16 June 1999. Applying "Mecca Leisure Ltd v Renown Investments Holdings Ltd" 1984 the most recent of two apparently contradictory CA decisions the judge held that the normal presumption that time was not of the essence had not been displaced by the deeming provision in the rent review clause and C's counter-notice was validly served. CA allowed S's appeal. Time not of the essence presumption can be displaced if there is deeming provision which clearly states the consequence of a party's failure to comply with the stipulated timetable. The deeming provison is not a mere administrative direction but an intrinsic part of the contract. Therefor the counter-notice was invalidly served. CA applied earlier decision "Trustees of Henry Smith's Charity v AWADA Trading and Promotion Services Ltd" 1983." Mecca Leisure Ltd v Renown Investments (Holdings) Ltd" 1983 not followed. Full judgement available on Court Service website available on http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/View.do?id=918&searchTerm=Starmark&ascending=false&index=0&maxIndex=0