Temple & Crook Ltd v Capital and Counties Property Co Ltd
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 38 EG 118-120(2)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: ChD 18 May 1990. Application for leave to appeal by tenants (T) from an arbitrator`s decision in relation to a rent review clause in leases of two adjoining shops. The determination of the rent had been referred to arbitration , and had to be determined on the basis of an open market value for leasehold premises held on a lease subject to the actual terms and conditions of the subject lease. The approaches adopted by the rival surveyors varied; the landlords` surveyor using comparables and T`s surveyor, the profits method of valuation. The arbitrator decided the rent should be considerably more than that contended by the tenants, but only slightly over half contended by the landlords. T sought leave to appeal. The Judge concluded that the case was a `one-off` case which related to the last review period; the arbitrator had made no `obvious error of law` and held that the `more lenient test` was not satisfied as he did not entertain any suspicion that the arbitrator was wrong. Leave t| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS43386 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 41517-1001 |
ChD 18 May 1990. Application for leave to appeal by tenants (T) from an arbitrator`s decision in relation to a rent review clause in leases of two adjoining shops. The determination of the rent had been referred to arbitration , and had to be determined on the basis of an open market value for leasehold premises held on a lease subject to the actual terms and conditions of the subject lease. The approaches adopted by the rival surveyors varied; the landlords` surveyor using comparables and T`s surveyor, the profits method of valuation. The arbitrator decided the rent should be considerably more than that contended by the tenants, but only slightly over half contended by the landlords. T sought leave to appeal. The Judge concluded that the case was a `one-off` case which related to the last review period; the arbitrator had made no `obvious error of law` and held that the `more lenient test` was not satisfied as he did not entertain any suspicion that the arbitrator was wrong. Leave t