[2006] EWHC 78 (Ch), 23 January 2006. Considers what was the correct valuation approach at the rent review of a retail business lease and whether the lease should consequently be rectified. E agreed to take a lease from C of two adjoining retail units to be converted into one store. At rent review a dispute arose as to the correct approach to be followed by the arbitrator. E maintained that the premises should be valued as a single unit configured to best advantage, with the replacement staircase that they were required to install. C argued that the valuation should be of the premises as they stood as at the date of the lease, namely as two separate units including the existing staircases but adding a notional new staircase. C brought proceedings for a declaration that their interpretation was correct or alternatively the lease to be rectified to reflect their valuation method. "Held": claim dismissed. The declaration was refused and the claim for rectification was deemed to have no merit. Although a lease should be interpreted according to business common sense the court could not rewrite the words used by the parties to make them conform to that business common sense.