000			01448cab a2200181 4500
001			ABS40811
008			090401t1989 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u26120
041			_aeng
245			_aFine Fare Ltd v Kenmore Investments Ltd
260			_c1989
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1989) 21 EG 81-84(3)
520			_aChD 5 December 1988. Tenants (F) asked for extension of time to serve notice seeking leave to appeal, under the Arbitration Act 1979 s1(2) , on a question of law arising out of an award on a rent review of a superstore in Luton . Alternatively F sought remission of the award on the basis that the decision arose as a result of a "procedural mishap". Rents for superstores are normally assessed on a " shell " or " fitted-out " basis. A comparable superstore in Swindon was submitted to the arbitrator (A) for consideration, but a dispute arose as to whether the Swindon store had been valued on a shell or fitted out basis. The landlord`s (K) surveyor submitted that it had been valued on a shell basis, F`s surveyor contended that it had been valued on a fitted-out basis. Both surveyors produced supporting correspondence. A expressed his concern about the conflicting evidence and requested clarification. Each surveyor reconfirmed his original findings. In his reasoned award A decided that th
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-RENT REVIEWS
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c17529 _d17529