Lancecrest Ltd v Asiwaju
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [2005] 16 EG, 146-155(9)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWCA Civ 117, 11 February 2005. Considered whether time is of the essence for a landlord serving notice to trigger a rent review and whether the letter sent by the tenant in response was sufficient counter-notice. The appellant tenant (A) held a 12 year lease with a clause providing for a rent review at the end of each four year period. The landlord (L) did not send a trigger notice until a year after the review date. The court below considered that the trigger notice was valid even though the clause required a notice to be served before the review date and that the letter sent by A was not valid as a counter-notice; A appealed. "Held": the appeal was allowed in part: time was not of the essence in regards to the trigger notice but was of the essence for the counter-notice. The letter sent by the tenant was held to be a valid counter-notice.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | L129536 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 129536-1001 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 117, 11 February 2005. Considered whether time is of the essence for a landlord serving notice to trigger a rent review and whether the letter sent by the tenant in response was sufficient counter-notice. The appellant tenant (A) held a 12 year lease with a clause providing for a rent review at the end of each four year period. The landlord (L) did not send a trigger notice until a year after the review date. The court below considered that the trigger notice was valid even though the clause required a notice to be served before the review date and that the letter sent by A was not valid as a counter-notice; A appealed. "Held": the appeal was allowed in part: time was not of the essence in regards to the trigger notice but was of the essence for the counter-notice. The letter sent by the tenant was held to be a valid counter-notice.