Image from Google Jackets

Trans-World Investments Ltd v Anita Dadarwalla [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2007] EWCA Civ 480, 22 May 2007. Appeal against a judgment which fixed the market rent on the grant of a new business tenancy without consideration of the previous rent or the rent payable for the adjoining property. Landlord (T) let a lock-up shop to tenant (D), the term of the lease expired, and the parties could not agree the rent. The rent payable under the old tenancy was £6 250. T's expert argued the new annual rent should be £7 850, based on the adjoining property's rent, but D's expert argued this was not in line with others in the area and the new rent should be £3 150. The judge accepted the previous rent was a significant factor, but placed no reliance on it as he had no evidence on how it was agreed, and disregarded the rent of the adjoining property, setting the new rent at £3 937.50 a year. T appealed, contending the previous rent of £6 250 should be the starting point for the new rent and that the judge had failed to taken into consideration the rent of the adjoining property. "Held": the judge had been wrong and both the rent previously payable and the rent for the adjoining property were relevant valuation evidence of the market rent. D was ordered to pay T's costs.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 140063-2001

[2007] EWCA Civ 480, 22 May 2007. Appeal against a judgment which fixed the market rent on the grant of a new business tenancy without consideration of the previous rent or the rent payable for the adjoining property. Landlord (T) let a lock-up shop to tenant (D), the term of the lease expired, and the parties could not agree the rent. The rent payable under the old tenancy was £6 250. T's expert argued the new annual rent should be £7 850, based on the adjoining property's rent, but D's expert argued this was not in line with others in the area and the new rent should be £3 150. The judge accepted the previous rent was a significant factor, but placed no reliance on it as he had no evidence on how it was agreed, and disregarded the rent of the adjoining property, setting the new rent at £3 937.50 a year. T appealed, contending the previous rent of £6 250 should be the starting point for the new rent and that the judge had failed to taken into consideration the rent of the adjoining property. "Held": the judge had been wrong and both the rent previously payable and the rent for the adjoining property were relevant valuation evidence of the market rent. D was ordered to pay T's costs.