000			01390cam a2200181 4500
001			##L131913
008			051215n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u131913
041		0	_aeng
245	0	0	_aWilderbrook v Oluwu
260			_c2005
520			_a[2005] EWCA Civ 1361,16 November 2005. Considers whether time is of the essence in rent review clauses. A landlord (W) was in dispute with a tenant (O) after a large increase in the level of rent in a lease of commercial property. Under the lease, O had to serve a counter notice within one month or would be deemed to have accepted the new rent. Another provision in the lease, however, allowed O to appoint a surveyor to decide the new rent. In doing so, O missed the one month deadline. W claimed that, as a counter-notice had not been served, O was deemed to have accepted the new rent. "Held": appeal dismissed. Time should not be a factor for serving a counter-notice and O was entitled to appoint a lawyer to decide the rent even if this delayed the rent review.
590			_aIKA030106
650	2	4	_aWILDERBROOK V OLUWU
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-LEASEHOLD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-COMMERCIAL LEASES-RENT REVIEW (COMMERCIAL LEASES)
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1361.html _zView the website free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c120473 _d120473