Image from Google Jackets

Crown Estate Commissioners v Connor and Another

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; 280 (6307) 25 October 1986, 532-542 (5)Publication details: 1986Subject(s): Summary: QBD 28 July 1986. Appeal from the decision of a rent assessment committee determining a fair rent of premises within the Crown Estate in Regent`s Park . The landlords had sought a rent of £18,250 and the tenant a rent of £7,200. The committee fixed the rent at £11,000. The landlords appealed to the High Court alleging errors of law by the committee. They complained that the committee erred in law in disregarding for valuation purposes the potential premium chargeable by the tenant upon assignment of the leasehold interest as a personal circumstance within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977 s70(1) . The committee erred in finding that they were unconvinced that no scarcity of accommodation existed in relation to the subject premises and that "no evidence had been called in this respect". QBD held that the committee were entitled to come to their conclusion as to the presence of scarcity and that there was nothing in the landlords` complaint as to an alleged lack of opportunity to provid
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS36988 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 1379-1001

QBD 28 July 1986. Appeal from the decision of a rent assessment committee determining a fair rent of premises within the Crown Estate in Regent`s Park . The landlords had sought a rent of £18,250 and the tenant a rent of £7,200. The committee fixed the rent at £11,000. The landlords appealed to the High Court alleging errors of law by the committee. They complained that the committee erred in law in disregarding for valuation purposes the potential premium chargeable by the tenant upon assignment of the leasehold interest as a personal circumstance within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977 s70(1) . The committee erred in finding that they were unconvinced that no scarcity of accommodation existed in relation to the subject premises and that "no evidence had been called in this respect". QBD held that the committee were entitled to come to their conclusion as to the presence of scarcity and that there was nothing in the landlords` complaint as to an alleged lack of opportunity to provid