A generous decision
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (0516) 23 April 2005, 143(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Highlights the fact that rent review clauses are more complicated than they may appear with complex provisions for the service of notices. This point is illustrated by the case "Lancecrest Ltd v Asiwaju" (L129536). 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 considered that time was not of the essence and the trigger notice was valid even though the clause required a notice to be served before the review date. The letter sent by the tenant was held to be a valid counter-notice in view that it challenged L's proposed rent.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L129634 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 129634-1001 |
Highlights the fact that rent review clauses are more complicated than they may appear with complex provisions for the service of notices. This point is illustrated by the case "Lancecrest Ltd v Asiwaju" (L129536). 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 considered that time was not of the essence and the trigger notice was valid even though the clause required a notice to be served before the review date. The letter sent by the tenant was held to be a valid counter-notice in view that it challenged L's proposed rent.